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

For 110 years, climate change has been in the news

theconversation.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 120 posts

Re: For 110 years, climate change has been in the news

#31

Post by DanHulton »

throw827474737 wrote: post #21
88840-8855 wrote: post #8

What is not being posted in news often enough are the options that we have to mitigate the effects. the only thing i read is that we need yo drive down co2. fact is: we are not gonna reach the targets in a reasonable timeframe. hence, we must start preparing to mitigate effects. instead we are caught by climate catastrophies like the current draught in europe, us and china and we are running around like headless chic…

What mitigations are there that do not target greenhouse gas emissions, how could those be simpler or cheaper than what we already know to do? Serious question!

I don't think the point is "simpler or cheaper", I think the point is that, say, widespread famine under our current production regime is inevitable. Let's talk about this now, so we can at least do SOMETHING about it, instead of being caught flat-footed when it happens and having no options left.

Or continued serious drought, or climate migration, or massive heat die-offs, etc. Better to face reality and prepare SOME kind of response, and the earlier we do, the better we can mitigate it.

Re: For 110 years, climate change has been in the news

#32

Post by SamoyedFurFluff »

Dig1t wrote: post #25
mmastrac wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humanity hasn't been good at multigenerational projects for some time.

Generally it seems those kind of concerted efforts are more easily accomplished under dictatorships rather than in democracies.

I actually disagree, I think we’re conflating dictatorships and social cohesion. Concerted efforts have functioned better under social cohesion(the NHS, social security, etc), but social cohesion isn’t valuable in a modern system because it’s not an efficient use of labor (think: young people leaving their extended families for work elsewhere, not inheriting family farms and businesses which are then bought by conglomerates).

Re: For 110 years, climate change has been in the news

#33

Post by eej71 »

AlexandrB wrote: post #9

It was very eye opening to see how many groups and individuals who "just want to have a debate" on the reality of climate change are funded by fossil fuel companies[1][2][3][4]. We are being lied to, and it's working. Just see the first few comments in reply to this article. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/mar/30/us-oil-d... [2] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climate-skeptic-idUST... [3] http…

If that's important to you, then you should also be aware that many of the greens and various anti-nuke groups from the 1980s and onwards were funded by the Soviets.

Some of these details can be found in books like "The Spy and the Traitor: The Greatest Espionage Story of the Cold War".

Re: For 110 years, climate change has been in the news

#34

Post by rullelito »

ahnberg wrote: post #23

Sadly the fact that it HAS been written about for so long just fuels the fire (no pun intended) for the sceptics. Something I often hear when trying to talk to people who refuse to believe the impact we have: "See these domsday prophets have been ranting about this for over a century and we're still here enjoying life!"

The same with "we only have 10 years left". After 30 years this doesn't carry much weight.

Re: For 110 years, climate change has been in the news

#35

Post by throw827474737 »

hotpotamus wrote: post #19
origin_path wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't Look Up is a film with a story that makes absolutely no sense and constantly contradicts itself, so it might not be the best slogan to use: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/movie-review-dont-look...

> Don't Look Up is a film with a story that makes absolutely no sense and constantly contradicts itself Honestly that sounds like a pretty good model of my life so far.

And a pretty good model of how humanity is acting :-)

Re: For 110 years, climate change has been in the news

#36

Post by defrost »

origin_path wrote: post #6

"Arrhenius estimated doubling CO₂ would produce a world 5℃ hotter. This, thankfully, is higher than modern calculations but not too far off, considering he wasn’t using a sophisticated computer model!" This is talking about the variable called "equilibrium climate sensitivity". Climate sensitivity is a key question in any fact-based discussion of climate change. There are three problems with this statement: 1. ECS ca…

Congrats on unearthing a 1970s example of O&G disinfomation and propaganda disseminated via the pop media.

You assert it represents what scientists of the time were saying, it clearly misrepresents J. Murray Mitchell:

> Mitchell was a pioneer in investigation and understanding of climate change, and from the 1960s onwards sought to alert the public to issues of global warming.

> In 1976 he described the conjecture of global cooling as irresponsible, and around that time supported other scientists in warning of the damaging effects of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Murray_Mitchell

Is this a delibrate ploy by yourself, or were you merely ignorant?

Re: For 110 years, climate change has been in the news

#37

Post by tejohnso »

88840-8855 wrote: post #8

What is not being posted in news often enough are the options that we have to mitigate the effects. the only thing i read is that we need yo drive down co2. fact is: we are not gonna reach the targets in a reasonable timeframe. hence, we must start preparing to mitigate effects. instead we are caught by climate catastrophies like the current draught in europe, us and china and we are running around like headless chic…

> options that we have to mitigate the effects.

You'd have to admit that there are significant effects first. And you'd probably have to admit that they're going to get worse. And you'd have to expect that some mitigation is going to be effective.

All of which are a tall order at this point. We're still talking about buying a new car just because, or flying off to some far off land just for fun. "The news" is not going to get serious about this until we do. In the meantime, it'll be catchy headlines and clickbait as usual.

Re: For 110 years, climate change has been in the news

#38

Post by rob_c »

I...

It's yet another discussion or "debate" or shock healine about something which won't change based on discussion...

Yet another "shock" headline is just a waste of effort which polarises yet more people into bad positions on all sides even more...

What's wrong in just making the planet nicer for everyone?

Re: For 110 years, climate change has been in the news

#39

Post by eej71 »

igorkraw wrote: post #14
andrewclunn wrote: post #2

Considering the period of concern over global cooling (from last century), claims of "we've known this, but have pretended not to for a hundred years" are just historical revisionism. When you lie about facts in favor of pushing a "more important truth" you don't convince people. You just give people more reason to doubt other things you're claiming.

The fact is that oil companies have been knowingly sabotaging the discourse and scientific process about this in a similar way that the tobacco companies kept 'having the debate' for as long as possible to not change their business model, externalities be damned. To downplay this is the real historical revisionism and lie

No post body was provided.

Re: For 110 years, climate change has been in the news

#40

Post by throw827474737 »

DanHulton wrote: post #31
throw827474737 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What mitigations are there that do not target greenhouse gas emissions, how could those be simpler or cheaper than what we already know to do? Serious question!

I don't think the point is "simpler or cheaper", I think the point is that, say, widespread famine under our current production regime is inevitable. Let's talk about this now, so we can at least do SOMETHING about it, instead of being caught flat-footed when it happens and having no options left. Or continued serious drought, or climate migration, or massive heat die-offs, etc. Better to face reality and prepare SOM…

But its happening already right now, it will just become very much worse over the next three to six generations.. it is also clear what we would need to mitigate right now.. not doing it is robbing us of any future options.

But I'm still wanting and waiting to here just one concrete option (which if not simpler nor cheaper than preventing further greenhouse gas emissions I'm not sure why we would want to do those then at all) that could help the e.g. surely unavoidable famine problem that we will encounter if world cements its path towards 3-4°C? There is just none even imaginable..

> Or continued serious drought, or climate migration, or massive heat die-offs, etc.

We know these all will happen together?

Post reply on HN