Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Earth had hottest 3-months on record; unprecedented sea temps & extreme weather

public.wmo.int

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 591 posts

Re: Earth had hottest 3-months on record; unprecedented sea temps & extreme weather

#161

Post by mistermann »

nprateem wrote: post #80
enraged_camel wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of me feels sad, part of me feels dread, and part of me says, "well, we're just reaping what we have been (and still are) sowing, and we collectively deserve all that is coming." All the suffering sucks though.

Only some are more culpable than others. The climate crisis represents the single biggest failure of humanity. How stupid do our leaders need to be to know about an extinction level event (or at least one that threatens the breakdown of civilisation) with > 50 years notice and take no substantive action? They should be charged for crimes against humanity.

Some conspiracy theorists warned people about the design of your political systems but no one seemed to think it's a legitimate concern. Time will tell I suppose.

Re: Earth had hottest 3-months on record; unprecedented sea temps & extreme weather

#162

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

IG_Semmelweiss wrote: post #57
multiplegeorges wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't think techniques have improved since the 1940s? Of course the data would be different with 60-70 years of improved collection techniques, analysis tools, and theoretical knowledge about the climate.

This does not sound at all like good fortune will shine on current data, though?

I'd expect that our current temperature measurements are much, much more accurate than in the early 1900s, so while I'd expect them to be tweaked, not by much.

But this whole debate is pretty much a smokescreen. Sure, there are definitely error bars around temperature records of the past and estimates for the future. But one thing I have never seen be in question is the sheer amount of CO2 we have put into the atmosphere: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/... .

The atmosphere now contains 50% more CO2 than pre-industrial times. The oceans are now 30% more acidic. These are gargantuan amounts. Sure, the global climate is incredibly complex, and how the climate reacts in different places in the world (e.g. ocean currents, ice cover, sea levels, temperatures, atmospheric humidity, storm intensity, etc.) is the hard work of some very smart people in climate science. But it's preposterous to me that we think we could raise the main global greenhouse gas by 50% and increase ocean acidity by 30% and not see some major impacts.

So while I think it's important to "worry about the details", only if done in good faith. Nitpicking around whether temperatures have rising 1.1 vs. 1.2 degrees, and using that as "evidence" that global warming isn't a problem or isn't worth doing something about, is what is so ridiculous in the face of avalanches of other data that we are seriously affecting the global climate.

Re: Earth had hottest 3-months on record; unprecedented sea temps & extreme weather

#163

Post by wcoenen »

GartzenDeHaes wrote: post #93
melling wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and there’s a lag effect so the temperature will still increase for years after that. However, to be clear, it’s unlikely we get to net zero in 27 years. We haven’t reached any of our goals so far and the goals only get more difficult

I seem to recall that the first and second IPCC reports (I haven't read the newer ones) indicated that increases would continue for about 200 years, even if emissions went to zero.

The earth is indeed not in thermal equilibrium due to the speed of the recent CO2 increase, so warming would continue if atmospheric CO2 concentration would be held constant.

However, atmospheric CO2 concentration would not stay constant after emissions stop. It would go down slowly, mainly because it would continue to dissolve into the oceans. This effect cancels out the above point. Which is why the IPCC says that "The global temperature will stabilise when carbon dioxide emissions reach net zero."[1]

Unfortunately, stabilizing temperature does not mean that nothing else changes. The stable higher temperature will still mean that glaciers will continue to melt. Sea levels will continue to rise. Oceans will still acidify further.

[1] https://www.ipcc.ch/2022/04/04/ipcc-ar6-wgiii-pressrelease/

Re: Earth had hottest 3-months on record; unprecedented sea temps & extreme weather

#164

Post by mdale »

jmondi wrote: post #103
jokoon wrote: post #98

It's odd how everytime somebody mentions slashing oil production by 50 or 75%, people are immediately up in arms. Same for red meat or cheap air travel. Western rich countries have too many really spoiled consumers. It's weird to say, but we should crash the economy if it can slow down climate change. I mean there are plenty people in other parts of the world who don't have such a high standard of living, and it's no…

And what about all the countries that won’t do anything regardless? So we should just tank our own economy while being unable to do anything about our neighbors? It won’t take tanking the economy, it would take world war 3.

Why does a green transformation have to "tank" the economy? Can't we have green economic revival ? Would it not create more jobs to transition faster ?

Re: Earth had hottest 3-months on record; unprecedented sea temps & extreme weather

#165

Post by mattnewton »

echelon wrote: post #4

We're technically still in an ice age [1]. How far does this need to go to reach the end of that ice age [2]? The Cretaceous period was over ten degrees warmer than our current period [3,4,5]. It supported a lot (though much different) biodiversity. How long would it take us to push into these temperature ranges? And how long to exceed them? How much species diversity will we lose at each half degree increment from t…

> The Cretaceous period was over ten degrees warmer than our current period [3,4,5]. It supported a lot (though much different) biodiversity.

Humans don’t evolve very fast, it’s going to be very very uncomfortable to be part of that “much different” biodiversity and kill a lot of people

Re: Earth had hottest 3-months on record; unprecedented sea temps & extreme weather

#166

Post by edhelas »

jmondi wrote: post #153
edhelas wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because eating less meat, stop taking the plane, reducing our consumption level, replacing cars with bikes and trains and other stuff like that seems radical to you ?

The OP you replied to implied that we need to completely tank the economy to do anything. It just “stop taking the plane” and “eating less meat”.

Reducing massively our meat consumption might have some effects on some part of our economy indeed, same if we choose two divide by 2, 3, 4 the number of cars we're producing.

Re: Earth had hottest 3-months on record; unprecedented sea temps & extreme weather

#167

Post by replygirl »

dtech wrote: post #124
ZeroFries wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you done the cost:benefit analysis? Curious what makes you so confident that "crashing the economy" (you're aware of all the excess death and despair this would cause?) is the best move here.

I mean it's pretty obvious that our current situation is already causing death and despair (droughts, wildfires, hurricanes) and this will only increase on our current trajectory.

right, now imagine the hysteria that would come from doing that actively and intentionally to everyone on an accelerated schedule. thwarting cancer by downing a bottle of cyanide

Re: Earth had hottest 3-months on record; unprecedented sea temps & extreme weather

#168

Post by [deleted] »

mdale wrote: post #164
jmondi wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what about all the countries that won’t do anything regardless? So we should just tank our own economy while being unable to do anything about our neighbors? It won’t take tanking the economy, it would take world war 3.

Why does a green transformation have to "tank" the economy? Can't we have green economic revival ? Would it not create more jobs to transition faster ?

[deleted]

Re: Earth had hottest 3-months on record; unprecedented sea temps & extreme weather

#169

Post by [deleted] »

jokoon wrote: post #98

It's odd how everytime somebody mentions slashing oil production by 50 or 75%, people are immediately up in arms. Same for red meat or cheap air travel. Western rich countries have too many really spoiled consumers. It's weird to say, but we should crash the economy if it can slow down climate change. I mean there are plenty people in other parts of the world who don't have such a high standard of living, and it's no…

[deleted]

Re: Earth had hottest 3-months on record; unprecedented sea temps & extreme weather

#170

Post by johnchristopher »

wredue wrote: post #30
mindcandy wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Climate change deniers tell each other we are coming out of The Little Ice Age that started in 1200AD. Which is technically correct. What they don’t tell each other is that “Little” is an understatement and we shot way past the prior “Medieval Warm Period” long ago and are only accelerating. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age#/media/File%3...

I just checked on them a few days ago. Their current messaging is back to: “Climate change is a hoax for science grants and political power”

Latest trend is "warming (which is normal) is increasing co2, but the other way around". From the same people who think co2 levels are too low to be significant and that water vapor is more problematic.
Post reply on HN