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

251–260 of 408 posts

Re: The concurrence of three climatic events

#251

Post by nforgerit »

jjoonathan wrote: post #217
PheonixPharts wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And still others because they've started looking at the pieces of how our global society functions as a system and realized that it's very possible we have pushed our environment beyond it's ability to support us. Leading ultimately to overshoot which leads to collapse.

Maybe, but they never seem to weigh any of the challenges against humanity's staggering ability to adapt and overcome. Doomerism has planet-sized infomercial hands. There is a long and embarassing trail of false apocalypses predicted from extrapolations + assumptions of helplessness, often made by otherwise intelligent and scientifically inclined people. We were all going to starve, but then Haber figured out how to…

Hm, I do get why people trying to be optimistic always bring up examples from the past to extrapolate that "humanity will always find solutions". What I don't get is that the same people simply overlook that we're not talking about single symptoms with a simple cause but about a root cause (emitting co2) which is deeply integrated into all our actions and economies and humanity is struggling dealing with that for at least a couple of decades.

We're talking about bringing half a dozen to multiple dozens of networks out of balance that we only halfway understand.

Re: The concurrence of three climatic events

#252

Post by gautamcgoel »

dj_gitmo wrote: post #166
isp wrote: post #54

In this article is the first time I've seen a graph with units "Hiroshimas per Seconds". https://climatecasino.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Ocean_H...

very poor taste IMO.

I found it very striking - it's a number that someone like me (not a physicist) can grasp.

Re: The concurrence of three climatic events

#254

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

#255

Post by ericmay »

jdlshore wrote: post #246
OrvalWintermute wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The issue is water and sand. While it's currently supplementing other ecosystems with nutritions, these by themselves won't magically become greenery. photosynthesis efficiency goes up as CO2 increases, and plants need way less water. This leads to greening of the entire planet and reversing desertification.

But at the same time, heat reduces photosynthesis efficiency, and even if it didn't, photosynthesis alone doesn't lead to healthy plants. You can't take one element in isolation.

Also "greening of the planet" doesn't necessarily mean it's a great place for mammals or humans specifically.

Re: The concurrence of three climatic events

#256

Post by ndsipa_pomu »

roflyear wrote: post #124
paranoidxprod wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To add to this with an article I just found “The [wet-bulb] temperature reading you get will actually change depending on how humid it is,” says Kristina Dahl, a climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “That’s the real purpose, to measure how well we’ll be able to cool ourselves by sweating.” Source: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jul/31/why-you-need...

Yes, wet bulb temp is in the context of humidity. Apparently 95f or 35c is the "limit" for humans - where many people will have health issues if they can't cool off otherwise.

"Health issues" may be under selling it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet-bulb_temperature

> The theoretical limit to human survival for more than a few hours in the shade, even with unlimited water, is a wet-bulb temperature of 35 °C

Re: The concurrence of three climatic events

#257

Post by detrites »

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've always naively thought that climate disaster was still 10-20 years out

You can hardly be blamed for that, they've been saying it was one way or another since at least the 1970's.

Literally none of their doomsday scenarios have occurred as stated yet.

My bet is, rather than bovine farts and air for plant-life, the major climate driver will turn out to be what it always has been... 1 million earths-worth chaotic searing nuclear eruption, boiling atop hidden internal processes 4b+ years.

And if there is a human aspect to it, I'd first investigate the large-scale weather-modifying experiments creating and directing precipitation in arbitrary and unaccountable ways over large landmasses for decades. Eg, look at China's.

(Cue the brigade claiming sensible observations are madness because there's a "consensus"... among only scientists that agree...)

Re: The concurrence of three climatic events

#258

Post by rednerrus »

candiddevmike wrote: post #174
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…

Every time humans try and fix nature, we tend to make it worse due to not understanding the problem or consequences.

Isn't that exactly what's happening with limiting the sulfur output of ships?

Re: The concurrence of three climatic events

#259

Post by abracadaniel »

no_wizard wrote: post #231
Trasmatta wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Climate change is terrifying, but I also have a hard time taking self titled Doomers totally seriously. It makes sense to consider all of the worst case scenarios for any event, and to prepare for them. But Doomers seem to have an obsession with it, and a need to convince others that the worst will happen. I noticed this a lot in 2020. COVID was (and is) awful, but there was so much shit that Doomers claimed would ha…

My take on it is that "well presented doomers" [0], if you will, serve to balance the "well presented optimists" [1] in that they are needed in society so we can have some take on how things could actually go wrong and sound warnings for potentially catastrophic failures. Its important though, that I think it needs moderating, like not everything "Doomers" say needs to be taken at face value, its important that other…

One downside though is that people generally love an excuse to avoid change or avoid additional effort. “It’s not real, so we don’t have to do anything” is functionally equivalent to “it’s already too late, so why bother doing anything”

Re: The concurrence of three climatic events

#260

Post by shawabawa3 »

forgetfreeman wrote: post #207
redtriumph wrote: post #205

> while the world attempts to recover from a pandemic that is still ongoing but ignored by global media. I wonder what parts of world are still going through the pandemic. Without citations, some of the facts in article come up as alarmists.

Literally everywhere on the planet where it is still trivially possible to catch covid, so....everywhere.

By that logic we've been in a common cold pandemic for the last 200+ years
Post reply on HN