So funny to constantly see these kinds of adjectives in titles about this topic. I thought that we had models that showed us just how shitty things are going to be, no? It can't be "unprecedented" decade after decade, either we have models we can rely on and we predicted it or we don't and need to accept that this whole idea of "tipping points" and climate change irreversibility is just a guess.
If we used this language with any other subject, HN would be up in arms about how sensationalist the headline is.
This is a fair point. Out of curiosity, I went back and looked at the temperatures in my area the year I was born. Our highest temperature of the year was 96F ... on September 24! Let me tell you, if we hit 96F two weeks from now, it'll be front page news and evidence of climate catastrophe. I think everyone has now fallen into the trap of mixing up weather with climate. We used to deride the deniers who said a cold…
You can't take the number outside of its context. We know the earth is warming, that's not up for contention anymore. When you hit a 50 year record high temperature, the implication is that it's only going to get hotter. It's not "doom and gloom because it hit 96F" It's "doom and gloom because it hit 96F and it's only gonna get hotter"
Except that just like the Air Force’s sunspot count, which is so blatantly false that NASA doesn’t even bother trying to get their own numbers to match up — the NOAA has been using statistical manipulation and outright fraud to create the appearance of global warming.
Right. (I was actually coming back to edit my post to acknowledge that you said that.) But... We can't actually do that right now. When can we? 10 years? With all the combines, and all the tractors, and all the semis having to be electric? Can we even do it then? We maybe can in 20... If it's 20 years from now before we can do it, that's not "right now". The problem with the way you said it is that it makes it sound…
That's the neat thing about hypotheticals: they let us talk about and consider situations which aren't real. I can say crazy, insane things which have no basis in reality without said things affecting reality in a negative way! It even lets me construct arguments that work under specific preconditions, even if those preconditions aren't met. It's incredible how rabid people get when talking about phasing out fossil f…
OK, hypothetically, if we had all the electric infrastructure and vehicles ready to go, sure, let's switch now. Hypothetically, that would be fine. But as you said, that doesn't affect reality. So, OK, you win the point. But in the real world, so what? In the real world we can't do it now, so what good is your hypothetical? Maybe we would be better served by focusing on things that actually matter in reality?
You can't take the number outside of its context. We know the earth is warming, that's not up for contention anymore. When you hit a 50 year record high temperature, the implication is that it's only going to get hotter. It's not "doom and gloom because it hit 96F" It's "doom and gloom because it hit 96F and it's only gonna get hotter"
Except that just like the Air Force’s sunspot count, which is so blatantly false that NASA doesn’t even bother trying to get their own numbers to match up — the NOAA has been using statistical manipulation and outright fraud to create the appearance of global warming.
I honestly don't know what to do when people like you exist that confidently refute the scientific consensus based on whatever they read online.
You're why I think the world is doomed. We can't fix climate change when there's a bunch of people who want to be contrarians so bad they're willing to die over it.
Yes, the entire idea is to refactor our cities and societies so that most people can and do use the low carbon option. It's not commuting 40Km by bicycle, it's raising the price of gas to the point that people choose to live at a distance where they can bicycle to work. At the same time you need to build housing and bike infrastructure to make sure everyone can have access to it.
Not everyone lives in a city. 'Refactoring' the planet is a pipe dream in the short term. It's not possible in the timeframe being discussed. People in the larger thread suggest that its better to get the dying over with now since it'll happen anyway. When food stops moving, it'll be the cities that fall first. A bicycle won't help.
Ok, you're a doomer and a prepper, no point in having a discussion you're not interested in
We are supposed to stop eating meat while our governments cut taxes for corporations as their management buys that third infinity pool. Corporations are "people", my friend - while being absolved from any social responsibility.
Yes. We can do a good thing even if other people are doing a bad thing.
It very much won't matter in the grand scheme of things though
And this is a good thing! For the most of its history, Earth was much (>5F) warmer than today: http://www.climate.gov/media/11332 https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hotte... We are still technically getting out of the last ice age. Warmer climates mean more places are warm enough to grow food. More CO2 means plants grow faster (also more food). Yea, some low lands might get flooded - either build…
Nothing about the warming climates makes food easier to farm, hotter temperatures just mess every established system we have. It's catastrophically destructive and everyone/humanity starves.
So funny to constantly see these kinds of adjectives in titles about this topic. I thought that we had models that showed us just how shitty things are going to be, no? It can't be "unprecedented" decade after decade, either we have models we can rely on and we predicted it or we don't and need to accept that this whole idea of "tipping points" and climate change irreversibility is just a guess. If we used this langu…
While unprecedented can mean unexpected or out of the norm it can also mean never before seen/done. So technically yes every point on the predictable upwards trendline is an unprecedented amount when we reach it in actuality.
Even assuming that HN readers may feel the word is emotive it's pointless to quibble about it when realistically any discussion about the details of climate change are going to be more emotive with such clinically correct terms as "climate refugees", "ocean acidification", "deadly heatwaves", "longest cyclone season", "3rd once in a century storm in the last decade".
That's the neat thing about hypotheticals: they let us talk about and consider situations which aren't real. I can say crazy, insane things which have no basis in reality without said things affecting reality in a negative way! It even lets me construct arguments that work under specific preconditions, even if those preconditions aren't met. It's incredible how rabid people get when talking about phasing out fossil f…
OK, hypothetically, if we had all the electric infrastructure and vehicles ready to go, sure, let's switch now. Hypothetically, that would be fine. But as you said, that doesn't affect reality . So, OK, you win the point. But in the real world, so what ? In the real world we can't do it now, so what good is your hypothetical? Maybe we would be better served by focusing on things that actually matter in reality?
Hypothetically my initial point stands: reducing fossil fuel consumption by replacing it with something else, and artificially manipulating the weather, are in completely different ballparks regarding danger.