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

401–408 of 408 posts

Re: The concurrence of three climatic events

#401

Post by deanCommie »

flangola7 wrote: post #348
deanCommie wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Everything will go wrong whether we do anything or not!!" No, it won't. Because we will act. "Everything will turn out fine, we don't need to worry about anything!!" No, it won't. We need to act. Honestly, both extreme reactions paralyze humans and nations into inactivity. We fixed the hole in the Ozone. We fixed Acid Rain. We stopped the whales from going extinct. We did this through concerted human and governmenta…

You speak with certainty that is not possible. Those were all tiny hobby projects in comparison. You don't have to overhaul all of modern civilization to save whales or the ozone layer. And... will act? The time to act already has come and passed, probably during the Bush years. We did not act. This is no longer about making it to the runway, this is about deciding which patch of rocks will kill the fewest passengers…

In the Bush years climate scientists told people that change is coming, and nobody paid attention.

In the Biden years climate scientists are telling people that change is here, and it IS here.

And more people are at least talking about the change, and asking what are we going to do about it.

And the worst thing to tell someone who is motivated and curious (and an entire Generation Z is) is to say "It's too late. You had your chance and you blew it. There's nothing to do now"

Your first sentence betrays a horrific misunderstanding: "I don't care if it's possible or not". It should not change my certainty in my ability to try. Even if it's not possible, it's still worth trying. What else are we supposed to do?

Re: The concurrence of three climatic events

#402

Post by Timon3 »

munificent wrote: post #400
Timon3 wrote: post #398

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. 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.

So let's go with 5°C over 2000 years, or 1°C over 400 years. Do you see the difference between that, and our current change of 1°C over 100 years (and accelerating)?

Re: The concurrence of three climatic events

#403

Post by sbierwagen »

idlewords wrote: post #314
OrwellianChild wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In which idlewords basically cites the plot of "Termination Shock" by Neal Stephenson... :-)

Please don't make me read another one of his books. I'm still recovering from the Seveneves fiasco.

It reads a lot like Mother Earth Mother Board, in that it's a travelogue long-form article about a device that doesn't actually exist yet.

It's not really a "novel" in the sense of having a "plot". Anyone who has read the wikipedia article on sulfur injection can safely skip it.

Re: The concurrence of three climatic events

#404

Post by munificent »

Timon3 wrote: post #402
munificent wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So let's go with 5°C over 2000 years, or 1°C over 400 years. Do you see the difference between that, and our current change of 1°C over 100 years (and accelerating)?

Yes, I do. But I also see significant differences in our level of technological sophistication and adaptability compared to Homo sapiens during the last ice age.

Re: The concurrence of three climatic events

#405

Post by Timon3 »

munificent wrote: post #404
Timon3 wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So let's go with 5°C over 2000 years, or 1°C over 400 years. Do you see the difference between that, and our current change of 1°C over 100 years (and accelerating)?

Yes, I do. But I also see significant differences in our level of technological sophistication and adaptability compared to Homo sapiens during the last ice age.

So our technology and so on will magically ensure our ecosystem doesn't die? We will find ways not only to adapt ourselves, but also to keep plants from dying due to sudden changes in climate, to keep animals from dying whose food sources have died out? We'll find magical solutions for all of these problems, whose complexity we still aren't close to fully understanding?

I wish I could share your optimism.

Re: The concurrence of three climatic events

#407

Post by dzamo_norton »

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 agree, Little Boys or Fat Mans per second would be make me think more of physical power and less of kill rate.

Re: The concurrence of three climatic events

#408

Post by Invictus0 »

ciconia wrote: post #289

There's this paradox where, on the one hand humanity is convinced it can overcome any problem nature throws at us, and can completely subjugate nature; and on the other hand, human beings are tragically grossly understimating the impact of their actions on their environment. This is really what stands out to me when people on HN suggest that global warming is totally solvable with just enough technological innovation…

The deus ex machina is the coming global population decline. By 2100 the population could be 6 billion.
Post reply on HN