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

It’s official: July was Earth’s hottest month on record

noaa.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 578 posts

Re: It’s official: July was Earth’s hottest month on record

#501

Post by Ma8ee »

adam_arthur wrote: post #483
Ma8ee wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m sorry, but what kind of hole (or bubble, to use a more popular term) have you been living in the last decade? There are a studies like the one you are requesting coming out regularly. Unfortunately, they can’t tell you exactly how many dollars different policies will cost, but that is due to the nature of the subject, not because of any faults of the studies. But the conclusions are unanimous: it’s going to cost…

Exactly the hand-wavey and vague language I describe. Nowhere do you quantify the cost of this. Saying there will be floods or wildfires is not meaningful discussion. We've had those throughout all of recorded history. How much worse will those things get? What is the economic cost? Just saying climate change is bad because X, Y, Z danger and not quantifying the actual impact with numbers is simply a discussion of hy…

Here you go: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/

It’s the report from 2014, the updated one will come next year. It’s a few thousand pages, but still just a summary of thousands of academic studies. You can go to each individual paper if you want exact confidence interval for each study.

Climate change is already impacting the average American with wildfires, drought, more hurricanes and floods. Costs of insurance in many areas and homes that are no longer possible to insure.

And for the political discourse. Just fucking google it! It’s everywhere. There are countless studies and articles and discussions that are easy to find.

Re: It’s official: July was Earth’s hottest month on record

#502

Post by User23 »

bena wrote: post #487
User23 wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Once again, that's tautology. He's asking you what actions are those of a zealot. If I recycle, am I zealot? If I say global warming is real, am I zealot? If I sabotage a petroleum refinery, am I zealot? There are degrees to actions All three of those are entirely orthogonal to whether or not one is a zealot. For example someone could sabotage a petroleum refinery because they’re following military orders without a…

See, your talking but saying nothing. Most of us understand what "zeal" is and being condescending isn't doing you any favors. "A is A" has no value. It's not an axiom, it's a tautology. It is true by virtue of being itself. You're saying "zealots are zealots". Which, ok. But it doesn't tell us what zealots are. Or what you think they are. That's what makes your logic bad. You've replaced it with tautologies. Bad is…

> See, your talking but saying nothing.

You might want to use that edit button yourself. Then again the issue might be a general lack of command of the English language rather than a typographic error, as demonstrated by your demonstrated inability or unwillingness to use a dictionary.

> "A is A" has no value. It's not an axiom, it's a tautology. It is true by virtue of being itself. You're saying "zealots are zealots". Which, ok. But it doesn't tell us what zealots are. Or what you think they are.

Thank you for the succinct demonstration of ignorance of both logic and the purpose of dictionaries. It sounds like you once "lost" a debate and your interlocutor used the word "tautology" and now you think it's some kind of magic I win button.

> And it's not a logical error. It's what you did with your edit. If not all who downvoted you and him are zealots, then you can't use the fact that you were downvoted as proof of zealotry. Which you did. Downvotes only go to like -4 around here.

What? Study some basic first order logic please. Also, consider adding the word "germane" to your lexicon. Oh and work on your reading comprehension.

> Besides your claim that "the zealots are after you".

You do realize that using quotation marks around a fabricated quote is dishonest, don't you? And since I'm feeling charitable, for that matter the word you're looking for is once again "you're." And if you really want to expand your mind look up "gerunds."

> You do not discuss in good faith. And the evidence is in your posts. You think using words like axiom and pragmatic means you're making good points. You're not. Because you apparently don't know what they mean.

Thank you for the case study of a midwit projecting his own intellectual inadequacies on his interlocutor. Sadly, I don't think further discussion with you is going to satisfy my, or anyone's, intellectual curiosity.

Re: It’s official: July was Earth’s hottest month on record

#503

Post by crispyambulance »

colpabar wrote: post #232
crispyambulance wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I heard about that but was skeptical that people could take that position non-sarcastically until recently when driving on the PA Turnpike, I saw this... https://twitter.com/co2coalition/status/1397912884756107269 The cynical dishonesty of an organization creating a billboard like that boggles my mind.

Haha I drive the turnpike all the time and these ones make me laugh the most. The ones that say "the green new deal is america's off switch" and the ones that were pro coal at least kind of make sense (their message is that people will lose their jobs), but these new pro-CO2 ones are just so absurd.

Yep, did you see the white Trump truck...

https://twitter.com/StephLSchmid/status/1417153947031199749

It's like they're trying to be a parody of themselves!

Re: It’s official: July was Earth’s hottest month on record

#504

Post by adam_arthur »

Ma8ee wrote: post #501
adam_arthur wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly the hand-wavey and vague language I describe. Nowhere do you quantify the cost of this. Saying there will be floods or wildfires is not meaningful discussion. We've had those throughout all of recorded history. How much worse will those things get? What is the economic cost? Just saying climate change is bad because X, Y, Z danger and not quantifying the actual impact with numbers is simply a discussion of hy…

Here you go: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/ It’s the report from 2014, the updated one will come next year. It’s a few thousand pages, but still just a summary of thousands of academic studies. You can go to each individual paper if you want exact confidence interval for each study. Climate change is already impacting the average American with wildfires, drought, more hurricanes and floods. Costs of insurance in…

Exactly as I said, studies have been done. So where is that bubbling into discourse?

Saying wildfires and floods, in a hand-wavey sense, makes you sound quite uninformed and doesn't inspire much call to action. You have to connect the direct costs and benefits to the individual if you ever want to persuade somebody. So can you explain to the voter in Michigan why raising gas by 50 cents is worth policy X? Just as an example.

The truth is that if you work out the math, it's unlikely to be very persuasive at all, because most negative ramifications of climate change will only be felt far in the future while costs to mitigate are immediate.

But the whole discussion around policy is meaningless.

The obvious solution to global warming is to make alternative energy more cost effective than fossil fuels. Then people will switch to it without any compulsion simply due to the economics being more favorable. For example, the majority of people will likely switch to electric cars once they're cheaper than gas cars (accounting for both up front and lifetime costs). We don't need legislation forcing people to buy electric, they will do it on their own within the next 10-15 years.

Similar with solar. At least as of a few years ago, solar on houses was a lousy investment from a cost perspective. As solar becomes more efficient, it starts to be more sensible, and in fact, even obvious to do.

By some measures the equilibrium point between fossils and renewable will happen relatively soon... Though there are some domains like aviation where it will take longer.

Policy should be aimed towards pushing renewables to be more cost competitive than fossils. And I don't mean through fiat or subsidy, but through improve d efficiency.

e.g. Better developed grid makes solar on housing more cost effective by allowing consumer to sell excess back to grid

Re: It’s official: July was Earth’s hottest month on record

#505

Post by k33n »

orf wrote: post #500
k33n wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are free to continue ignoring the objective reality that Trump's policies had an objectively positive impact. Feel free to "cherry pick" some negative Trump impacts that weren't wholly manufactured by the swamp.

Disregarding that nonsense, I really have to ask something - when you say “better men” in your profile, are you referring to yourself?

You're disregarding my objectively factual comment? Not a surprise. Everyone knows where they stand, deep down. I suspect you know the truth.

Re: It’s official: July was Earth’s hottest month on record

#506

Post by SigmundA »

lhorie wrote: post #469
SigmundA wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have never been able to get my head around the religious paradox of God has a plan and free will. Can we make choices that effect the outcome of things or is it all part of Gods plan? It can't be both right? Did God create everything including free will or does it exist outside of his control? I don't blame my program when it does something wrong, I mean I wrote the code that tells it how to behave.

> I have never been able to get my head around the religious paradox of God has a plan and free will. I think this can actually be explained in a fairly straightforward way via science: the laws of physics dictate precisely how reality ought to behave, and yet we have thoughts and we make decisions and we believe to be largely free to do whatever we want even though our conscience and our entire being are essentially…

Then why would God punish us for following his laws if they are just the laws of physics?

What about randomness and indeterminism? Is there a RNG driving our decisions at some level? If so where does the entropy come from?

Re: It’s official: July was Earth’s hottest month on record

#507

Post by SigmundA »

monocasa wrote: post #272
SigmundA wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have never been able to get my head around the religious paradox of God has a plan and free will. Can we make choices that effect the outcome of things or is it all part of Gods plan? It can't be both right? Did God create everything including free will or does it exist outside of his control? I don't blame my program when it does something wrong, I mean I wrote the code that tells it how to behave.

My (albeit atheist looking in, but with a Christian upbringing) understanding of that is it's sort of like how classical physics comes out of the randomness of quantum physics. You have free will, that absolutely can affect the world, but god's plan is emergent in a way that takes into account the randomness of free will, combined with occasionally putting this thumb on the scale with saints, miracles, etc. In that s…

That would seem to require an outside source of entropy to drive the randomness who created that and where does it come from?

Re: It’s official: July was Earth’s hottest month on record

#508

Post by orf »

k33n wrote: post #505
orf wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disregarding that nonsense, I really have to ask something - when you say “better men” in your profile, are you referring to yourself?

You're disregarding my objectively factual comment? Not a surprise. Everyone knows where they stand, deep down. I suspect you know the truth.

You don't need to be coy, of course it's referring to you. If it wasn't (or you had a bit more self awareness) the wording would be different.

What about you makes you great? You seem angry more than anything. Not many great men are angry on the internet.

Re: It’s official: July was Earth’s hottest month on record

#509

Post by noobly »

eloff wrote: post #484
noobly wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of the analogy was to represent that our actions may be essentially inconsequential if all holes are not sealed, and that larger holes or offenders should take priority. The hole size wasn't really all that important, but yes, a more accurate description would've involved a larger hole, probably. How do we even get emission data anyway? Especially for other countries like China. For example this source is t…

Why would you doubt that? People are so much richer in the US, they drive more, they have bigger houses to heat and cool, they consume more in general.

Yeah, that's true. And they have a large population to dilute the mean. I'm surprised we're so close to them in terms of total Co2 output too, I thought they dwarfed us given how much production takes place there coupled with a more lax attitude.

Re: It’s official: July was Earth’s hottest month on record

#510

Post by leereeves »

yongjik wrote: post #339
starik36 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is nonsense. Whether someone virtue signals or not, actions are what's important, not words. The CO2 emissions output has been coming down since the high in 2006. With the old boss and the new boss. https://www.statista.com/statistics/183943/us-carbon-dioxide... If anything, fracking helped the environment, since it offset resources being mined by the traditional, more wasteful methods.

> This is nonsense. Whether someone virtue signals or not, actions are what's important, not words. That's not fair. When you're the chief of a fire station, saying "Yep that's a blazing fire right there, let's do something" is not virtual signaling, it's called not being a fucking idiot.

A better metaphor for the behavior of politicians is: saying "Yep that's a blazing fire right there, let's do something...in twenty years".
Post reply on HN