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

Oceans hit highest temperature on record

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 696 posts

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#471

Post by OroPla »

tzs wrote: post #321
Muromec wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only relevant metric is ppm in the atmosphere. Every single other, especially per capita ones are distructioo

That is both completely right and completely wrong. It is right because all the planet cares about is the amount in the atmosphere. It is completely wrong because whatever total amount X of CO2 emissions we decide we need to limit humanity to, we have to somehow allocate that CO2 emission budget to people. Unless you can make a good case that some people have some sort of natural or divine right to a bigger share tha…

> the only way to do it is for every person to have the same share

That is not a very good idea.

Think about it, just breeding more people would give humanity a bigger share.

Much better to let every square mile (or some other arbitrary region) have a share and divide that among the people living there. Higher population density would translate to less shares per person.

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#472

Post by ricardobayes »

This seems to be directly linked to the lowered maritime shipping emissions, especially sulphur aerosols. Perhaps we should stop doing ad-hoc interventions until we can figure out a good, global path to tackle this challenge.

ps. please don't downvote this. I'm NOT a climate change denialist. Aerosol removal is linked to the recent temperature spike. Don't mix CO2 with aerosols. We need to get rid of CO2.

Peer-reviewed article covering the topic: https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/24/13681/2024/ (best resource)

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2206885119 (covering reduced cloud coverage after the emissions being lowered)

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#474

Post by Fricken »

Windchaser wrote: post #102
yodsanklai wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A few degrees warmer in the ocean and El Niño becomes an incredible problem for half the world. Ice age was only 6 degrees less than now, half of Europe was under ice

And when the Earth was 3C cooler, NYC was nearly under an ice sheet. The current estimate is that we're heading for +3C warmer, which is gonna have some big impacts.

2-3°C of warming by 2050, 4-5°C by 2100. There's no rule saying it will stop there.

https://www.dpg-physik.de/veroeffentlichungen/publikationen/...

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#475

Post by kalenx »

croes wrote: post #382
kalenx wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair enough. I'll expand. > The political criticism in the US (and in Canada where I'm from) against fossil fuel extraction makes no sense. If you _must_ extract fossil fuel, you can arguably say that it's better to do it somewhere with higher environmental standards (of course, here I'm disregarding people disdain to see wilderness areas they know and have an emotional attachment with transformed into oil fields). B…

The higher environmental standards that allow drilling in nature reserves? Sorry that sounds like, if you get murdered than better here because the knives are cleaner.

Well I was trying to go with it for the sake of argument. I don't really think there is a "clean" way to extract fossil fuels, especially in oil sands like in Alberta. My point was that even if that was true, it still doesn't make sense to me.

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#476

Post by Timon3 »

noosphr wrote: post #209
vkou wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's funny that environmentalists would rather see the world burn than solve all emissions problems with nuclear. This criticism would hold more weight if environmentalists held a shred of power. They aren't the ones at the steering wheel.

They had enough power to close down all the nuclear power plants in Germany.

Ah yes, the famously environmentalist CDU. Obviously the center-right conservative party consists 100% of environmentalists, that's why they fight so hard to push back the ICE ban, prop up the oil & gas industry (just look up Katharina Reiche if you want to feel sick for a bit), and why they run smear campaigns against the Greens.

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#477

Post by tpm »

marcyb5st wrote: post #460
tpm wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No we are not in the worst place given relative population density. Look at South & Southeast Asia very carefully - there are countries like Bangladesh with pop. of 177 million in an area of double the Czech Republic (pop. 10 million). They have it much worse than us. > we join Canadian weather with English-level insulation Having lived both in England and here in Slovakia, we are much much better equipped to survive…

But if the AMOC collapses the drought you talk about will become the a year round problem. Climate models predict a drop in rainfall between 20 and 50% depending on the region. So agriculture will be fucked. And the US will be hit by super hurricanes since all the moisture/hot water will linger there supercharging them.

The rainfall deficit and soil dryness is already a year-round problem in our region, this summer is just a very extreme version of that. I am reasonably sure it will get worse even without the potential AMOC collapse.

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#478

Post by apothegm »

eightysixfour wrote: post #392
estearum wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Global consensus would be great, but "reliable mechanism" would be a decent start. In lieu of that, there's nothing to build consensus around.

Atmospheric sulfur seems to be the "default."

Because when we did that accidentally the outcomes were so great?

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#479

Post by appointment »

jpleyden98 wrote: post #354
imperio59 wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China is the biggest problem. US Carbon emissions are going down, China's are exploding.

This just isn't true. Chinas emissions peaked back in 2024.

Although they may increase this year because the Chinese government has been encouraging the substitution of coal for gas & oil during the Iran crisis.

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#480

Post by kalenx »

jamesknelson wrote: post #369
kalenx wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair enough. I'll expand. > The political criticism in the US (and in Canada where I'm from) against fossil fuel extraction makes no sense. If you _must_ extract fossil fuel, you can arguably say that it's better to do it somewhere with higher environmental standards (of course, here I'm disregarding people disdain to see wilderness areas they know and have an emotional attachment with transformed into oil fields). B…

> But what about _stop_ fossil fuel usage? And how do you propose we do that if we’re not the ones selling the fossils? Fossil fuel usage is for the most part, a transaction between willing participants at a fair market price. Will you ban that? How will you enforce it? I hate to be presumptuous, but I assume you’re not a fan of colonialism or wars in the Middle East. While oil is as valuable as it is for heating, in…

> And how do you propose we do that if we’re not the ones selling the fossils?

Because we would be the ones not _buying_ the fossils? There are multiple ways to reduce fossil fuels dependency, and they are known (and no, they do not involve genocide or colonialism). In Canada, carbon tax is an example, backed by economic studies (from right wight economists) and originally introduced by conservative (in Canada at least). Of course, then right wing parties started to convince people to "axe the tax" because it was the root cause of their problems (which is was, of course, not).

That's always the issue, and that's always been bugging me. Why is it that not being able to replace, today, 100% of the fossil fuels usage means "gee, we should do nothing, let's actually increase our production!"? How do we come from "such an energetic transition is a multi generation work" (which is true) to "meh too hard, let's double down"? How can we seriously make the argument "hey, I _could_ clean up the mess in my backyard, but anyway my neighbor is way worse and he has a larger backyard, let's do nothing instead"?

I really don't see how these positions are seen as the "voice of reason". To me, there at best the voice of laziness.

Post reply on HN