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

I used to not worry about climate change. Now I do [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 884 posts

Re: I used to not worry about climate change. Now I do [video]

#311

Post by _y5hn »

lynx23 wrote: post #281
_y5hn wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are correct: Daily Sea Surface Temperature (notice the new paradigm started in 2023 and extending into 2024): https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/ Daily Surface Air Temperature: https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/?dm_id=world Daily Sea Ice Extent (click on "Show Southern Hemisphere", also showing concerns of being low in 2023): https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/seaice/ The most shocking is the…

[flagged]

How do you know what I feel?

I just provided links with the latest diagrams, facts. You provided what, ad hominem attacks and projection?

I suggest to read up on the matter, in order to contribute something of value. There are lots of content derived from scientific studies and facts that present unbiased, objective material.

Re: I used to not worry about climate change. Now I do [video]

#312

Post by graphe »

adrianN wrote: post #297
127361 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This might just be the same thing as apocalyptic religious predictions, I think? But environmentalism this time?

Religious predictions never come with data to support them. That’s an important difference.

Pythagoreans did. If it is truthful, do such "religious" beliefs stops being religion?

Climate change people seem like a doomsday cult anyways, but if what if they're right?

Re: I used to not worry about climate change. Now I do [video]

#313

Post by 127361 »

adrianN wrote: post #297
127361 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This might just be the same thing as apocalyptic religious predictions, I think? But environmentalism this time?

Religious predictions never come with data to support them. That’s an important difference.

I looked at the overall actions of the group of people, instead of what they are saying.

Re: I used to not worry about climate change. Now I do [video]

#314

Post by jijijijij »

flir wrote: post #263
_y5hn wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are correct: Daily Sea Surface Temperature (notice the new paradigm started in 2023 and extending into 2024): https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/ Daily Surface Air Temperature: https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/?dm_id=world Daily Sea Ice Extent (click on "Show Southern Hemisphere", also showing concerns of being low in 2023): https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/seaice/ The most shocking is the…

There's a good chance that the sudden bump in sea surface temperature is a consequence of us cleaning up marine diesel. Which is at least interesting, because it suggests we were doing geoengineering without even knowing it. (Random thought: what's the sulphur content of automotive diesel? I know it's cleaner, but there are so many more cars than boats. Could we see another sea surface temperature bump as we phase ou…

I don't think ships are burning "diesel", but basically crude oil. It's not even in the same category as car fuel.

Re: I used to not worry about climate change. Now I do [video]

#315

Post by oezi »

PeterisP wrote: post #270
oezi wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you saying this. We just need to get to netzero. This is going to cost some money but it won't break the bank. Estimates go up to 2x global GDP.

If we magically went netzero tomorrow, the greenhouse effect from the already accumulated emissions would still cause a significant climate change in the upcoming decades. And, of course, we won't go netzero tomorrow, there's no "just" in it due to the time and effort it would take to scale up the solutions even if the money was there, but of course the money isn't there; while technically the world could afford it i…

You are making it out to be an insurmountable challenge and reject what we are have already achieved. Cost-parity renewables being the most impressive feat. Global treaties such as Paris are a second.

Re: I used to not worry about climate change. Now I do [video]

#316

Post by adrianN »

jhoechtl wrote: post #249
pk-protect-ai wrote: post #145

I no longer worry. I'm extremely pessimistic about the impending climate change. I believe Sabine isn't pessimistic enough about what to anticipate. Consider the tundra methane emissions and the explosive release of methane-hydrates from the oceans, along with water vapor, a potent greenhouse gas. The disaster looming over all ecosystems (a mass extinction event) that will happen in decades and the doom-phase could l…

I am glad that I survived oil outage, sour rain, the Ozone hole, mass famine because of overpopulation. All in a lifetime. I must have had sheer luck.

There was massive concerted effort to stop acid rain and ozone depletion. Maybe we should try that for the climate crisis if we want similar success at preventing catastrophe.

Re: I used to not worry about climate change. Now I do [video]

#319

Post by dagss »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #306
dagss wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The issue is the global population. Obviously, that's the metric that matters for global issues like the climate and environment. No. "Obviously", the metric that matters is emissions. Or, the integral sum(person * emission of that person). When the emission per capita varies by a factors of 1000x, the distinction matters. Look, what if you could choose between: Option A: The 50% lowest polluting part of the world'…

Emissions are only one of the problems, the other being use of resources. And both are a function of the population and are people get out of poverty use of energy and resources per capita only increases, compounding the overall impact, as already said. If we were 500 million globally, for instance, we would not be having this discussion because there would be no problems. I am not wrong, this is just a statement of…

    > If we were 500 million globally, for instance, we would not be having this discussion because there would be no problems.
I think even 500 million is too much with current lifestyles. Given that a very large proportion of current emissions are caused by 500 million.

But this aside, let's assume you are right.

Which 500 million would you preserve? How would you get there before climate change is irreversible anyway due to melting tundra etc?

Especially given that a lot of human history can be summed up as "wars to determine WHICH one will be the surviving set of humans to survive on limited resources". So which billions do you think will go willingly?

-- Yes, of course, assuming that this magically just happened it would solve the problem. So would a number of other unrealistic solutions that has nothing to do with population control. Are we going to discuss which one out of a number of completely unrealistic uptopias are best?

I see your 500 million inhabitant world, and raise with imagining a world with a population of 20 billion, with a million nuclear plants, no use of fossil fuels, LED-powered vertical farming, centralization of populations in big cities to let wildlife grow back and focus all efforts in responsible, non-disruptive mining of the resources needed.

Which one of those is more or less preferable or realistic is pointless, and distracting from possibilities that may be within reach.

Post reply on HN