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

51–60 of 120 posts

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

#51

Post by random314 »

rob_c wrote: post #44
rullelito wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This just makes the problem worse because little remember this 30 years later and think you're a liar or idiot because you pushed exaggerated claims. In the 80s in the UK acid rain was hyped up, in the 90s it was 20 years of oil reserves in the education system. Both now have generated adults distrusting education because they're not an academic and they just remember what a fool told them at face value without nuanc…

Are you aware that acid rain problem was solved by regulatory action? It didn't automatically disappear.

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

#52

Post by pif »

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…

I'd really like a debate to be possible, but it doesn't seem so.

On one side, you have the idiots who don't "believe in science", as if facts were something to believe in rather than acknowledge.

On the other side, you have too many people confusing science with politics.

Yes, the temperature is going up. Yes, we are guilty. Yes, fossil fuels play a fundamental role. No, the only answer is not "let's reduce fossil fuel consumption".

Sure, reducing fossil fuel consumption is a valid proposal, but like any other proposal it has to be carefully evaluated in terms of (monetary and non-monetary) costs and benefits. Do you know why we are consuming so many fossil fuels? Because, as soon as the stem engine was invented, people found out that life got instantly better! If we found a way to reduce emissions without impacting our comfort, that would be perfect. Unfortunately, we are far from there.

In the end, as this is a planetary issue, and as we know very well the tragedy of the common, it's fundamental that we move all together in the same direction.

But those people who spit nonsense like "It's too late, stop C02", without ever wondering why C02 is emitted in the first place, and without realizing how illogic it is to claim a solution exists to a problem for which "it's too late", do not make very charismatic leaders that the world is ready to follow.

It is definitely time that feelings are taken off the table and rationality is applied to the most serious concern for the future of humanity.

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

#53

Post by origin_path »

defrost wrote: post #36
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…

The part I quoted isn't about Mitchell, and the article doesn't even quote Mitchell at all. It just reports what one of his studies concludes about temperature trends.

I think you've yourself been misled. Mitchell accepted global cooling was really happening and the world was indeed cooling since 1940. See for yourself, here's one of his papers published in 1975:

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-010-1729-9_...

"In balance, the net thermal impact of all global-scale pollution (including thermal pollution) is likely to be one of warming, perhaps increasingly so after 2000 A.D. It is concluded that the cooling of climate since 1940, apparently still in progress, is a natural phenomenon plausibly related to an enhanced stratospheric loading by volcanic dust in the period"

The fact that the world got colder between 1940 and 1975(ish) was never really in dispute up until climatologists realized that they couldn't explain the contradiction between that and the greenhouse gas nature of CO2. At that point they started re-calculating old temperatures to make the cooling trend disappear, and telling people that all the stories published about their agreement in the 60s and 70s were just awful terrible journalists somehow getting what they were saying entirely backwards. To finish it off they claim that anyone who points out that this isn't true is an immoral denier who should be silenced. It's very much 1984 in real life.

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

#55

Post by random314 »

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…

> yo drive down co2. fact is: we are not gonna reach the targets in a reasonable timeframe.

The solution to climate change is very cheap and simple. It is a carbon tax. It is also not difficult to implement at all and will cause only modest inflation.

However, the oil industry is a huge influence on governments all over the world and will throw everything at preventing this from happening.

Imagine for a moment that all of the carbon taxes were directed to subsidize EV and solar. All if us would be driving cheap EVs and getting 90% of our electricity from solar sources.

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

#56

Post by pif »

edgefield wrote: post #7

It’s striking to me that Hacker News has a significant audience of flat earthers. Don’t look up, right? Let’s be clear, human caused climate change is very real. Rigorous science confirms this and CO2 + methane levels are now driving very visible and catastrophic weather all over the world.

Thank you!

Really, thank you for posting a fact-based statement without attaching your political opinion. I think facts would be accepted more easily if there were presented to the general public without attaching the personal opinion of the writer.

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

#57

Post by goodpoint »

pif wrote: post #52
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…

I'd really like a debate to be possible, but it doesn't seem so. On one side, you have the idiots who don't "believe in science", as if facts were something to believe in rather than acknowledge. On the other side, you have too many people confusing science with politics. Yes, the temperature is going up. Yes, we are guilty. Yes, fossil fuels play a fundamental role. No, the only answer is not "let's reduce fossil fu…

> I'd really like a debate to be possible

No, the "debate" they want to have is not on what to do but rather if science is to be trusted or not.

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

#58

Post by pif »

rob_c wrote: post #41
edgefield wrote: post #7

It’s striking to me that Hacker News has a significant audience of flat earthers. Don’t look up, right? Let’s be clear, human caused climate change is very real. Rigorous science confirms this and CO2 + methane levels are now driving very visible and catastrophic weather all over the world.

You realise the nuance is in blaming where the methane production is coming from as well as the c02. There's a huge amount of shifting the "who is going to take any responsibility" which has made this pointlessly political and just wastes time and effort. This isn't helped by certain parties "reviewing" scientific data until it's massaged into narratives that they can push. (Again on all sides of whatever political s…

> It's asif politics is full of the worst of middle managers unfortunately.

It's worse than that: it's as if people voted the worst of middle managers into office!

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

#59

Post by blkhawk »

origin_path wrote: post #42
ben_w wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The newspapers printed those stories in the 1970s, but they didn't reflect general scientific consensus at that time. Or were you thinking of a different decade?

The 50s and 60s were also full of reports on global cooling. Temperatures started dropping from the 1940s by the data they used back then (these days that fall has been edited out). But there's a deeper problem with the point you're trying to make here. You claim the reports didn't reflect the scientific consensus. Really? Go read those reports. They do claim they were reporting the consensus. To the extent they admi…

Uh, why are you linking a lot of NY times and random letters. You are aware that news media often misunderstands science or gets it wrong by amplifying the most surprising and interesting conclusions one might take from research?

This whole "they told us the world is cooling" thing is an almost completely US-only phenomenon.

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

#60

Post by Eupraxias »

origin_path wrote: post #42
ben_w wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The newspapers printed those stories in the 1970s, but they didn't reflect general scientific consensus at that time. Or were you thinking of a different decade?

The 50s and 60s were also full of reports on global cooling. Temperatures started dropping from the 1940s by the data they used back then (these days that fall has been edited out). But there's a deeper problem with the point you're trying to make here. You claim the reports didn't reflect the scientific consensus. Really? Go read those reports. They do claim they were reporting the consensus. To the extent they admi…

This is a big part of the problem. I was a child in the 70's and 80's, and it was a constant drumbeat about how climate change was going to freeze the planet.

It was rather hard to take it seriously when the narrative suddenly shifted to how climate change was going to melt the planet.

I never hear discussion about the discrepancy, so the whole thing has been quite a head-scratcher!

Post reply on HN