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

271–280 of 408 posts

Re: The concurrence of three climatic events

#271

Post by brucethemoose2 »

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…

No world leader is going to stick their neck out and spend billions to rain acid (even if thats exactly what the country needs), especially if their country is in a climate crisis. They mind as well hand in their resignation.

Re: The concurrence of three climatic events

#272

Post by Ancalagon »

A lot of comments deriding this article as alarmist. Excuse me if I'm incorrect in saying so, but even the data seems to tell me that alarmism is where we are at:

This articles data.

Incredible floods in Pakistan.

Heat domes over the PNW.

Fires in Australia, Canada, California.

And now a warming event in the North Atlantic unlike any other.

All of that and this is likely to be one of the coolest summers for the remainder of our lives. Its only getting warmer from here (barring geoengineering).

What about this is not alarming? As disheartening as it is, this is what is needed for action at this point.

Re: The concurrence of three climatic events

#273

Post by brucethemoose2 »

volkl48 wrote: post #75
abeppu wrote: post #26

> The IPCC suggests that current sulfur aerosol levels are contributing in the neighborhood of 0.5° C to total global cooling, offsetting warming that would otherwise rapidly occur. > By cleaning up shipping fuels, massive regions of the world’s oceans that were protected from heating by shipping sulfate aerosols are now experiencing rapid warming. This includes the main shipping routes between Asia and the Western U…

> But if every fraction of a degree matters, shouldn't we also be at least continuing if not scaling up these these albedo-increasing changes? Acid Rain is also a bad thing with bad consequences. While I'm not necessarily that opposed to cautious attempts at some geoengineering, I don't think "scale up the sulfate emissions" is a viable solution.

The calculus changes. One day it might look very attractive to ecologists

Re: The concurrence of three climatic events

#275

Post by jjoonathan »

PheonixPharts wrote: post #242
jjoonathan wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> they never seem to weigh any of the challenges against humanity's staggering ability to adapt and overcome. I'm not sure who the "they" you're referring to is, but the fast majority of authors/researchers I've read on these topics are quite well aware. The problem is the vast majority of this "adapt and overcome" has been based on two major things: - Historically: a geologically remarkable period of climate stabili…

My thesis was:

> the truth is you just don't know

You disproved:

> it doesn't logically follow that they can't have cancer

Good job, you really pwned that straw man.

Also, I want to preserve this one for posterity, because I'm pretty sure it's hilariously wrong but I have better things to do than dig through the literature right now:

> We've only really started seeing strong apocalyptic thinking in the last several hundred years.

Re: The concurrence of three climatic events

#276

Post by distortionfield »

carlosjobim wrote: post #138

I was skeptical, but when the author introduced "Hiroshimas per second" as a scale to measure temperature I understood that this was a truly scientific article.

Why does converting units for convenience nullify a scientific hypothesis? Please explain.

Re: The concurrence of three climatic events

#278

Post by momdad420 »

concordDance wrote: post #177
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…

Unless you live in the select few poor equatorial countries with high humidity and heat you have little to worry about personally. Climate change is a long term problem. We're going to see hundreds of millions of climate refugees before the end of the century, but the bulk will be after most of us are dead.

[dead]

Re: The concurrence of three climatic events

#279

Post by black_puppydog »

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…

You do realize that even if it might work, and even if there weren't any other side effects like acid rain, this would essentially make every piece of sky on every day hazy. We'd essentially trade the very concept of "blue sky" for a livable temperature. Kinda hard to put a price on that for me. Maybe I'd prefer living with genuinely less comfort but blue skies.

Re: The concurrence of three climatic events

#280

Post by guerrilla »

hammock wrote: post #143
guerrilla wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

>Never rains anymore Sweden average rainfall seems to be trending up on a 100-year scale. https://tradingeconomics.com/sweden/precipitation > We've got drought and fire here in Sweden already Forest fires in Sweden are a complex dynamic and the risk factor from climate change is only one part. Here is an interesting discussion https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10113-020-01718-2 Droughts in Sweden have been o…

> Sweden average rainfall seems to be trending up on a 100-year scale. https://tradingeconomics.com/sweden/precipitation

> Droughts in Sweden have been on a downtrend for the last 60 years, with quite a bit of variability. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221458182...

Your averages are meaningless if not intentionally misleading. The country is huge ranging from 55°N to 69°N and having four distinct and relatively extreme seasons. It's ridiculous to assert that the droughts down here in the south aren't new, drastic and caused by climate change. The sea water here is virtually room temperature. Don't try to tell me that's normal. Cherry picking through your confirmation bias is no substitute for being here and being able to read our news with access to experts studying and working with exactly this.

Post reply on HN