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

361–370 of 408 posts

Re: The concurrence of three climatic events

#361

Post by data_maan »

diydsp wrote: post #262
dj_gitmo wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

very poor taste IMO.

It's been suggested to state things in terms of 9/11/2001 for Americans who don't understand the distaste in such discussions. E.g. each "Hiroshima" would be worth 65 "9/11/2001"s. The scale of the graph's Y-axis would run from 195 to 585 "9/11/2001"s. Derivation: Hiroshima: 129,000–226,000 deaths. E(death_Hiroshima) ~= 180k. 9/11/2011, NYC: 2,753 people died. 180k/2753 ~= 65.

Both are helpful. You need to frame it in the language your audience understands best (which typically nation-wide historical catastrophes).

Re: The concurrence of three climatic events

#362

Post by wrycoder »

Ancalagon wrote: post #272

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 remai…

The cool summers are the ones to watch out for - a harbinger of global cooling.

Re: The concurrence of three climatic events

#363

Post by pictureofabear »

idlewords wrote: post #313
e44858 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sulfur dioxide + water + oxygen = sulfuric acid, which is not something you want in the atmosphere where rain clouds form.

Rain clouds don't form in the stratosphere, and there's very little water there.

So the sulfur dioxide would stay in the stratosphere and not make its way down into the troposphere?

Re: The concurrence of three climatic events

#364

Post by dredmorbius »

gautamcgoel wrote: post #252
dj_gitmo wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

very poor taste IMO.

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

One thing that playing with GNU Units has taught me is useful equivalences between various energy measures.

1 Hiroshima ~= 15.5 kiloton TNT ~= 18 GWh.

A large powerplant generates roughly 1 GW of electricity, so running for 18 hours is the equivalent of 1 Hiroshima.

(GNU units ... seems to have this predefined, along with 'davycrocket", "nagasaki", "fatman", "littleboy", "ivyking", "castlebravo", "tsarbomba", "b53bomb", "trinity", and "gadget".)

This also makes clear that it's not merely the amount of energy released, but the rate which matters. A powerplant running for three quarters of a day isn't tremendously destructive. A Little Boy type fission bomb exploding in a few microseconds ... is. Slowing your car from 100 kph to 0 over 10 seconds is a strong stop, doing that in 0.1 seconds is a fatal accident.

Typically, a 10x increase or decrease in scale or magnitude is transformative. By very rough averages, a human walks at ~5 kph, an automobile travels at 50 kph, a commercial airliner at 500 kph, a fighter aircraft at 5,000 kph, and a spacecraft at 50,000 kph.

Re: The concurrence of three climatic events

#365

Post by dredmorbius »

sgu999 wrote: post #300
detrites wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> And if there is a human aspect to it lol > sensible observations Please share how you've conducted your observations in a rigorous way, no one will blame you for it, that's how science progresses... > "consensus" lol

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36289143>

Re: The concurrence of three climatic events

#366

Post by lettergram »

josho wrote: post #208
lettergram wrote: post #130

Let’s see the last 200-400 years of climate data. Curious the fluctuations 1991-2020 has decent variance, there’s also 30 year solar cycles. We only see one cycle in this data, we need more data tip make conclusions

> we need more data tip make conclusions Skeptics have been raising questions like yours for decades. If you are truly interested in answers then it is only one or two google searches away. In short scientists have already factored those concerns into their analysis.

Oh I fully know they have a lot more data than 1991-2023 (as is this chart). But of course they have no way to factor beyond like 1900. They don’t have the data and it’s why the models are always off. It’s also why I’m asking for it. It’s obviously constructed data designed to reach a pre-determined conclusion. The 1960-1991 data and 1930-1960 data is available (though likely using different sensors, locations, etc to calculate temp)

Re: The concurrence of three climatic events

#367

Post by roflyear »

BasedAnon wrote: post #139
roflyear wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These issues are going to impact livestock around the world - which is a big contributor to global warming. I suppose some issues are self-correcting.

If by self-correcting you mean 'killing enough humans until a new equilibrium is reached' sure

Well, you don't need meat to survive.

Re: The concurrence of three climatic events

#368

Post by defrost »

kfrzcode wrote: post #121
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…

There's literally nothing a "bottom-up" approach will do to effectuate any serious change on the climate. The climate is a dynamic system, and "climate change" is a tautology. At which point, ever, is any "climate" in a static state? Never, because systems are dynamic, and it's chaotic. Now, if anyone (the State powers and corporate interests) actually WANT to "solve" this "problem," it's, uh, very very clear where t…

Weather (short term local fluctuations) is chaotic.

Climate (long term parameters) isn't.

As an example of how this can be so, consider the classic images of spinning wingnuts in space ( Dzhanibekov effect | Tennis racket theorem ).

The tumblings of the wingnut, moment to moment, are chaotic and unpredictable.

The long term trajectory of the wingnut is clear to see, the centre of mass arcs in a smooth manner and the eventual impact point on the hull can be marked in advance.

( In answer to your question, I've spent decades in geophysics and related disciplines, I've measured gravity, ground radiation, cosmic radiation, continent scale tides to determine mean sea levels, etc. )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_racket_theorem

Re: The concurrence of three climatic events

#369

Post by dbmnt »

thx-2718 wrote: post #185

"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." Sunshade: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_sunshade I'm not too concerned with climate change destroying us all within a 100 years. I'm excited to see the innovations and discoveries to be made while we develop technology to mitigate disaster. Edit…

You realize the Sunshade is science fiction, right?

Picking two examples from the Wikipedia article you linked, the Fresnel lens is a proposed object that would float in space between the Earth and Sun, approximately 1000 km wide and only a few mm thick. The article notes "at a science fiction convention in 2004, Benford estimated that it would cost about US$10 billion up front, and another $10 billion in supportive cost during its lifespan." Lol. This idea is pretty hilarious, just in general. A lens so wide as to span the entire US state of South Dakota. Please explain how you'll launch and/or assemble that at the L1 point. (This was a subplot of a Simpsons Episode by the way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Shot_Mr._Burns%3F#Part_One)

Or there's the "Lightweight solution", "a distributed sunshade with a mass on the order of 100000 tons, composed of ultra-thin polymeric films and SiO2 nanotubes", which "estimates that launching such mass would require 399 yearly launches of a vehicle such as SpaceX Starship for 10 years." Also lol!

Post reply on HN