US-Canada heatwave 'virtually impossible' without warming • Hacker News Board

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

#161

Post by bavell » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 2:04 PM UTC

the_third_wave wrote: post #127

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. One of the larger problems is that to many people climate change has become a political issue instead of a physical phenomenon. Climate change is used as a lever to achieve political goals just like racial relations, gender confusion, migration questions and many other unrelated things. This has made it a political act to either a…

Having talked to climate change skeptics myself numerous times, you've hit the nail on the head. Wish I could upvote this more!

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

#162

Post by School-Cotton » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 2:05 PM UTC

minikites wrote: post #156

trabant00 wrote: post #139

"When will people wake up?" "Politicians don't care!" "Rich people are just greedy!" "Animals are dying!" "Science deniers!" What are those but moral and/or intellectual superiority declarations? And they're false too! We historically never cared or done as much for the environment as we do right now. Cars are getting stricter pollution norms on a schedule. Home appliances are rated by efficiency, we even banned some…

>But it's downright dishonest to say we don't care or do. If I exercise once a month and spend the other 29 days sitting around, is it dishonest to say I care about physical fitness? >The solutions left to be found are nowhere clear or easy. They're very clear, they're just not easy, because they're unpopular, because they involve people being less greedy and selfish. We could tax pollution and punish polluters far m…

It’s also a tragedy of the commons problem. If one country does the right thing, it doesn’t stop everyone else from carrying on as usual.

There are debates right now in Germany about how German steel producers could become uncompetitive internationally if stricter emissions requirements come into force as planned. I assume the same sort of debates crop up anywhere that makes any attempt to address climate change.

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

#163

Post by School-Cotton » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 2:06 PM UTC

tolbish wrote: post #160

trabant00 wrote: post #139

"When will people wake up?" "Politicians don't care!" "Rich people are just greedy!" "Animals are dying!" "Science deniers!" What are those but moral and/or intellectual superiority declarations? And they're false too! We historically never cared or done as much for the environment as we do right now. Cars are getting stricter pollution norms on a schedule. Home appliances are rated by efficiency, we even banned some…

Oh no, a problem that isn't clear or easy. Better wash our hands of it and call it a day, huh. If we can convince countries to stop killing their own people, we can convince countries to curb their emissions. We are not doing close to enough, and the measures we have taken so far can hardly be counted as half-assed.

> If we can convince countries to stop killing their own people

We haven’t actually been able to do this. Not even close.

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

#164

Post by syops » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 2:07 PM UTC

aww_dang wrote: post #148

syops wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does that come to mind? The explanation provided does not explain everything even within the confines of climate science. When massive amounts of energy are added to a dynamical system there will be chaos before a new equilibrium is obtained. This is not controversial. It’s settled science. The heat dome in question is not just a bunch of new local high temps. That’s the wrong thing to look at. It’s a large high…

Perhaps it is a bit unfair to more nuanced proponents of climate apocalypse, but in popular discourse, every weather event is attributed to climate change. There is no observation of weather which cannot be construed as a result of anthropogenic climate change. If the conclusion opposes impending doom the popular refrain, "weather is not climate" is employed. >massive amounts of energy are added... Yes, but the claim…

There are lots of examples of where science has gotten it wrong. So what do we do, philosophically, with this fact? It is possible that the 97+% of climate scientists are wrong in their beliefs. Let us ponder this possibility and assign it an unknown probability of X. Let us now ponder the following two facts.

Every known example of where science has gotten it wrong is also an example of where science has corrected itself. The overwhelming majority of the people most knowledgeable about climate science believe the massive amounts of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution are largely responsible for the disruption of the weather system.

Is X sufficiently high to discount the previous two facts? Scientists are studying perturbations of Earth’s orbit to see the effect that has on climate. Some study the effects of solar dynamics on Earth’s climate. It’s not that CO2 is the sole culprit. It’s that CO2 is the one we can control. It’s not that climate doesn’t change it’s that we are changing it faster than nature can change. It’s changing fast enough that there will be dire consequences to the current world political system.

Of course more governance is needed. The free rider problem mandates that the solution be enforced by government.

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

#165

Post by aww_dang » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 2:08 PM UTC

syops wrote: post #75

iso1631 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've been cranking up my AC What is your power source?

I’m curious why you ask this question. Does the answer matter or in some way lead to a broader point? If so what is that point? Assume it’s the worst possible energy source as far as you are concerned. Then what is your response?

It does seem a bit hypocritical the poster's part if we assume he used the worst possible energy source. AC is a comfort and luxury. If we assume that climate apocalypse is impending, then going without a few comforts would seem reasonable.

>there's no political will or consensus to combat climate change; it's also not a one nation issue.

Think about this in the context of the warmist's proposals for limiting energy consumption in the developing world. People who've never had access to AC at home will be priced out of the market due to rising energy costs. Those who have no electricity will have to wait longer or perhaps never enjoy electric lighting.

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

#166

Post by ziml77 » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 2:08 PM UTC

Sebb767 wrote: post #51

akavel wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Exactly this. Plus some perceived unfairness because people who do not care about the environment have an advantage over you and also a better lifestyle.

People are afraid that this unfairness will leave them without money. There's a thought that if the US has laws to limit altering the climate, China (ever the bogeyman) will continue to pollute and have a crushing economic advantage because of it.

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

#167

Post by School-Cotton » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 2:08 PM UTC

zivkovicp wrote: post #125

schnebbau wrote: post #100

I feel like I've gone through the five stages of grief with climate change, and I'm finally at acceptance. There are too many forces pushing it further than to prevent it, and governments won't come together to actually do something about it until it's too late. Everything that has a beginning has an end, and maybe this is ours. Over time the earth will heal without us, so instead of worrying about something out of o…

Regardless of whether climate change is real or this is all a "green wash", the logical choice is to support ecological preservation and clean air initiatives BECAUSE it's nice to breath clean air and drink clean water. I think it's really that simple. There is very little incentive for us regular people to support heavily polluting industry unless it's required for self preservation in some way. Technology will also…

Clean air and water have nothing to do with climate change. Climate change is caused by relatively tiny concentrations of CO2, which is perfectly safe to breathe, and not “dirty” or a pollutant in any traditional sense.

If you think of climate change and imagine superfund sites, factories dumping sludge in rivers, etc., then you are conflating two concepts that are only tangentially related.

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

#168

Post by peteradio » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 2:09 PM UTC

syops wrote: post #91

aww_dang wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate that. From the perspective of the skeptic the Popper quote comes to mind. Karl Popper — 'A theory that explains everything, explains nothing'

Why does that come to mind? The explanation provided does not explain everything even within the confines of climate science. When massive amounts of energy are added to a dynamical system there will be chaos before a new equilibrium is obtained. This is not controversial. It’s settled science. The heat dome in question is not just a bunch of new local high temps. That’s the wrong thing to look at. It’s a large high…

> before a new equilibrium is obtained

Is there any guess as to how long this will take? It seems like the interpretation is weather will become a bit more stable after some time, at a +2* new normal.

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

#169

Post by irthomasthomas » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 2:10 PM UTC

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #144

irthomasthomas wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> And by using a 1000 year model they are starting their analysis, conveniently, after the peak of the Roman Warm Period. They don't seem to be using a 1000 year model, they are just saying the rate of occurrence. And when do you think the Romans, and their related warming period, were exactly?

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22040-tree-rings-sugg... "How did the Romans manage to grow grapes in northern England when most climate studies suggest the weather was much cooler then? We may now have an answer: it wasn’t that cold at all."

Edit: oops I did mixup the late Roman and Medieval warm periods. Anyway both the RWP around 2000 years ago and the MWP 1000 years ago are what geologists call interglacial periods. The earth is currently in an ice age (when there is permanent ice at either of the poles) but every thousand years or so the climate warms and the ice retreats for a couple hundred years. Unfortunately most climate change studies only consider data from 1850 onwards, and those that do go back further only go start at the last glacial period about a thousand years ago.

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

#170

Post by syops » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 2:11 PM UTC

aww_dang wrote: post #165

syops wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m curious why you ask this question. Does the answer matter or in some way lead to a broader point? If so what is that point? Assume it’s the worst possible energy source as far as you are concerned. Then what is your response?

It does seem a bit hypocritical the poster's part if we assume he used the worst possible energy source. AC is a comfort and luxury. If we assume that climate apocalypse is impending, then going without a few comforts would seem reasonable. >there's no political will or consensus to combat climate change; it's also not a one nation issue. Think about this in the context of the warmist's proposals for limiting energy…

This is the crux of the free rider problem. Consider this: my own hypocrisy has nothing to do with whether or not my statements on a particular topic are correct.