The concurrence of three climatic events • Hacker News Board

Re: The concurrence of three climatic events

#391

Post by DrThunder » Tue, Jun 13, 2023, 1:59 PM UTC

michaelmrose wrote: post #107

DrThunder wrote: post #38

He forgot the 4th event - Social Contagion Resulting in Climate Sensationalism. Can we please have a realistic discussion on climate change? I'm so sick of these "scientists" acting like we're in "Day After Tomorrow" and every normal weather event is suddenly a precursor to the Armageddon that'll take us all out in the next decade or less. You scientifically cannot look at individual weather events and determine they…

If someone tells you that cigarettes are going to give you cancer the fact that you aren't dead yet isn't a good indication that they are wrong. Furthermore the climate is incredibly complex. Waiting until we are absolutely certain of the exact trajectory of our fuckery will surely result in us being too fucked to take much corrective action. Basically you are asking to much and you're wrong.

Nice strawman.

Re: The concurrence of three climatic events

#392

Post by throwaway5752 » Tue, Jun 13, 2023, 2:43 PM UTC

nomel wrote: post #357

throwaway5752 wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fires in CA are normal, but not all fires are equal, and the fires that have been in CA recently are worse than they would have been even with the excess ground litter. The fire season is longer, the droughts are worse, the fires are more intense, fires are happening outside of their historic range, and trees are not surviving the fire assuming they weren't dead already due to drought. Timely article, "Anthropogenic…

> even with the excess ground litter With the nearly 30 years of mismanagement, I'm having trouble understanding how that conclusion can be so easily made. From your link: > While an increase in temperatures and dryness has been identified to be one of the major drivers of increased summer forest burned area (BA), the extent to which such changes are due to natural variability or anthropogenic climate change remains…

You are cherry picking quotes. This is from the abstract:

"Our results indicate that nearly all the observed increase in BA is due to anthropogenic climate change as historical model simulations accounting for anthropogenic forcing yield 172% (range 84 to 310%) more area burned than simulations with natural forcing only. We detect the signal of combined historical forcing on the observed BA emerging in 2001 with no detectable influence of the natural forcing alone. In addition, even when considering fuel limitations from fire-fuel feedbacks, a 3 to 52% increase in BA relative to the last decades is expected in the next decades (2031 to 2050), highlighting the need for proactive adaptations." - "BA" is "burned area"

This is from the conclusion:

"These findings strongly indicate that the observed increase in BA was primarily due to increased fuel aridity and not due to simultaneous variations in nonclimate factors such as human effects on ignitions, fire suppression, or by altering land cover (similarly to the conclusions by refs. 1 and 42). Our results suggest that changes in human environmental factors, including changes in biomass and fire management practices during the period of record, did not significantly affect the stability of the climate-fire relationship at the scales analyzed here."

I'm not saying fire suppression policies had no impact. I'm saying that they are not the only cause of the fires. Furthermore, I am saying they aren't even the primary cause, and it's not close.

Re: The concurrence of three climatic events

#393

Post by soperj » Tue, Jun 13, 2023, 3:03 PM UTC

distortionfield wrote: post #305

soperj wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only if you're looking at the Arctic, not the Antarctic.

Everyone knows it’s only real science if you shrink your scope until data fit your narrative.

Sorry, I'm responding to someone specifically talking about the Antarctic. The argument that you're looking for doesn't exist here.

Re: The concurrence of three climatic events

#394

Post by jules-jules » Tue, Jun 13, 2023, 3:14 PM UTC

valval wrote: post #383

_djo_ wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can’t tell if you’re trolling, in denial, or just very naive. Climate change is already causing economic damage and the loss of lives. This isn’t some theoretical future problem.

You should read some of Bjørn Lomborg's stuff.

Maybe you should say hello to the people of Pakistan for a change.

Re: The concurrence of three climatic events

#395

Post by sgu999 » Tue, Jun 13, 2023, 3:46 PM UTC

dredmorbius wrote: post #365

sgu999 wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 >

Uh, thanks. I couldn't resist this time, I needed the reminder I guess!

Re: The concurrence of three climatic events

#396

Post by Aerbil313 » Tue, Jun 13, 2023, 5:00 PM UTC

Haha! It’s relieving to finally see the optimistic technologists of HN finally getting a taste of their own medicine. This is what your much-praised technology did to the world, folks, and no, this was inevitable due to the very nature of it. If you fear what lies ahead, know that it’s not a fear in vain! Collapse is finally getting mainstream.

Re: The concurrence of three climatic events

#397

Post by munificent » Tue, Jun 13, 2023, 5:43 PM UTC

Timon3 wrote: post #381

munificent wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> - Historically: a geologically remarkable period of climate stability Homo sapiens survived the transition from the last ice age to today's climate.

Could you explain how this transition is comparable to climate change in duration and amplitude? I can put a pot of water on my stove, but my hand in, warm the pot by 1°C, and I'll be fine. I can't do the same with an increase by 100°C.

Not an expert, but my understanding is that the end of the last ice age led to an overall global average temperature change of +10°C.

For the current climate change, we've been calling +2°C catastrophic.

It is catastrophic: millions will die, species will go extinct, trillions will be spent updating infrastructure and rebuilding. But I believe that it's survivable.

Re: The concurrence of three climatic events

#398

Post by Timon3 » Tue, Jun 13, 2023, 6:26 PM UTC

munificent wrote: post #397

Timon3 wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you explain how this transition is comparable to climate change in duration and amplitude? I can put a pot of water on my stove, but my hand in, warm the pot by 1°C, and I'll be fine. I can't do the same with an increase by 100°C.

Not an expert, but my understanding is that the end of the last ice age led to an overall global average temperature change of +10°C. For the current climate change, we've been calling +2°C catastrophic. It is catastrophic: millions will die, species will go extinct, trillions will be spent updating infrastructure and rebuilding. But I believe that it's survivable .

> Not an expert, but my understanding is that the end of the last ice age led to an overall global average temperature change of +10°C.

Over what time period? 10°C in 10 million years is fine. In 10 years it would kill almost all life. The amount of change is inconsequential as long as the rate of change is small enough.

Re: The concurrence of three climatic events

#399

Post by munificent » Wed, Jun 14, 2023, 12:42 AM UTC

ericmay wrote: post #331

munificent wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree 100% that we should do everything in our power to save as many people and as much technology as we can as we go through climate change. My point was just that claims that the entire species is going to go extinct are unlikely and, worse, counter-productive. The last thing we need is fatalism and people giving up hope.

I agree with you - I’m sorry I didn’t gleam your original intent from the previous post. Fatalism and nihilism are mind viruses.

I'm sorry: my one sentence reply was definitely not clear.

Agreed completely on fatalism and nihilism being mind viruses.

Re: The concurrence of three climatic events

#400

Post by munificent » Wed, Jun 14, 2023, 12:44 AM UTC

Timon3 wrote: post #398

munificent wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not an expert, but my understanding is that the end of the last ice age led to an overall global average temperature change of +10°C. For the current climate change, we've been calling +2°C catastrophic. It is catastrophic: millions will die, species will go extinct, trillions will be spent updating infrastructure and rebuilding. But I believe that it's survivable .

> Not an expert, but my understanding is that the end of the last ice age led to an overall global average temperature change of +10°C. Over what time period? 10°C in 10 million years is fine. In 10 years it would kill almost all life. The amount of change is inconsequential as long as the rate of change is small enough.

Over roughly 10,000 years:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Period#/media/Fil...

There was a roughly 5°C change in about the last 2,000 years.