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

The concurrence of three climatic events

climatecasino.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 408 posts

Re: The concurrence of three climatic events

#61

Post by guerrilla »

vichu wrote: post #12

I fear that this is the year "wet-bulb temperature" becomes a term regular households across the world become deeply familiar with. It may be as ubiquitous as the term "social distancing" became. I've always naively thought that climate disaster was still 10-20 years out, but it seems like it's going to begin in earnest now and instead be completely catastrophic after these next 10 years. What can I as an individual…

I dount it'll help you much to move. We've got drought and fire here in Sweden already. Never rains anymore. Slaugherhouses fullbooked already becauae the probability of being able to keep the livestock fed and watered looks pretty bad already...

Re: The concurrence of three climatic events

#62

Post by hedgehog »

soperj wrote: post #28
Ancalagon wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Third paragraph from the bottom. Seems pretty clear in layman's terms to me. > As we enter Northern hemisphere summer, large regions of the planet will experience record heatwaves, fires, storms and flooding. These events will set records in intensity, duration and frequency. The planet’s overall temperature will spike to new highs for the modern era, with 1.5°C in sight for 2024. Antarctic polar sea-ice will continu…

We've got 40 years of data on Antarctic sea ice, and over the last 4 decades it's been growing, not retreating. [1] [1] https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index

That's an accurate but misleading characterization of the data. Anyone can go eyeball the chart you linked and then read this for context to form a more complete opinion:

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/...

Re: The concurrence of three climatic events

#64

Post by klyrs »

lm28469 wrote: post #39
htk wrote: post #8

Reading the article I see some very short timeframes being used (e.g. 1991-2020, 1979-2000) as statistically relevant. Might be enough when preaching to the choir, but irrelevant to the skeptics.

Skeptics will stay skeptics whatever we say. Last time the timeframe was too long, this time the timeframe is too short. "we had ice age in the past", "we had warming in the past", 1990 is too close, -2m years is too far, the sun is closer (it's not), "numbers can say anything", "oooooh spooky graphs ;)" &c.

If we move the goalpost to before we started collecting data, then all studies are invalid and the problem goes away!

Re: The concurrence of three climatic events

#65

Post by detritus »

idlewords wrote: post #52

As this post hints at in the discussion of sulfur emissions at sea, all it takes to significantly slow global warming is one country or sufficiently motivated non-state actor deciding to go all-in on geoengineering (like seeding the stratosphere with sulfur dioxides). Compare this to the collective action problem of everyone, including rapidly industrializing poorer countries, spending trillions to decarbonize their…

According to the 'novel' The Ministry of The Future, that could be a state Actor... .

I put 'novel' in quotes because it's a really weird novel.

Re: The concurrence of three climatic events

#66

Post by lsh123 »

abm53 wrote: post #60
lsh123 wrote: post #51

Yet another alarmist article. These predictions are so easy to make and nobody cares if you are wrong. From the past (you can google more yourself): https://apnews.com/article/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0 https://www.nytimes.com/1995/09/18/world/scientists-say-eart... https://nypost.com/2021/11/12/50-years-of-predictions-that-t...

The article is mostly about current conditions, not predictions.

Last 2 sentences from the article:

"... The end of global industrial civilization is where we are headed right now, not at some future dystopian moment. I wish I had a hopeful word to end with. But I don’t."

Re: The concurrence of three climatic events

#67

Post by roflyear »

mbil wrote: post #10

Interesting that removing sulphur emissions may have resulted in more solar radiation being absorbed by the oceans. Wonder if cargo ships could purposely emit some benign material that would reflect away sunlight. Although I suspect there could be unintended consequences.

I'd be careful buying into the "whys" here, as I'm not sure they are qualified to come to these conclusions. It seems speculation.

However, the data seems to be real...

Re: The concurrence of three climatic events

#68

Post by tonymillion »

notfish wrote: post #36
londons_explore wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if scientists agreed that spraying seawater upwards from every ship would mitigate say 10 years of climate change, can you imagine world governments coming to an agreement to do it, and how to fund it?

Also, H2O is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, so this is prolly not really a great idea

To counter that, H2O has a really easy path to exit the atmosphere (straight down), and it’s not like we’re producing that much more…

Unlike CO2 which has been nicely stored away from the atmosphere for millions of years…

Re: The concurrence of three climatic events

#69

Post by [deleted] »

soperj wrote: post #28
Ancalagon wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Third paragraph from the bottom. Seems pretty clear in layman's terms to me. > As we enter Northern hemisphere summer, large regions of the planet will experience record heatwaves, fires, storms and flooding. These events will set records in intensity, duration and frequency. The planet’s overall temperature will spike to new highs for the modern era, with 1.5°C in sight for 2024. Antarctic polar sea-ice will continu…

We've got 40 years of data on Antarctic sea ice, and over the last 4 decades it's been growing, not retreating. [1] [1] https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index

[deleted]

Re: The concurrence of three climatic events

#70

Post by avgcorrection »

> The first WTF is in the Antarctic, where sea-ice extent is setting record lows daily, now fully over 2 million kilometers below the 1991-2020 mean. This is not some one-off event. A decline like this has long been predicted. The impact is that there is a lot more open ocean than normal for this time of year. Open ocean means the ability to absorb incoming solar radiation, and that means further heating in a well-known feedback loop.

We already knew that it would get this bad, but then some other curveball came and made it worse.

In other words just another Monday in the 2020s.

Post reply on HN