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

501–510 of 696 posts

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#501

Post by sokoloff »

YZF wrote: post #232
kalenx wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand. Are you making the argument that extracting fossil fuel here is better than extracting it elsewhere? Or, perhaps more to the point, you do see that the issue is the use of fossil fuels and that extracting _more_ is just contributing to it? About the (unrelated) boycott question, I would invite you to consider the reasons motivating people to boycott Tesla. If think everyone do that to "hurt" or "p…

Yes. I am making the argument that if we extract a barrel of oil in Canada that is all in all better than in Russia or Saudi. We have more environmental standards and we put that money towards better things. Canada was able to give me a rebate on my EV purchase. Where do you think that money comes from? I drive a Tesla because at the time it was (and maybe still is) the best EV. I benefit from the network of supercha…

If you assume fossil fuels are unlimited (or the limit is so much beyond than humans will decide to extract), that makes sense.

If you have a view that fossil fuels are practically limited (not necessarily in the literal sense ”run out of the last molecules” sense but in the practical/economic sense), you’d rather buy someone else’s and hoard your own reserves to extract later when the global supply is lower/price is higher.

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#502

Post by sfn42 »

pfisch wrote: post #304
consumer451 wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you. We are actually at huge risk. "Western Civilization" rose out of our stable European climate and that is over now. However, we need a global consensus for geoengineering. That's just how that works... the Jet Stream. Meanwhile one country believes that global warming is a benefit, aka Russia. They currently appear to have control of the West.. so what in the actual f? For a far more dire diatribe: h…

>However, we need a global consensus for geoengineering. Why? Does china or the us need a consensus before taking existential risks like making ai? Or detonating a nuke that had a tiny chance of setting the atmosphere on fire? Or attacking random countries with almost no rationale or plan? This kind of thinking is why the EU is screwed. No other major power cares that much because they aren't at the same level of ris…

Referring to "AI" as an existential risk is hilarious. They're glorified chatbots, they're not going rogue and taking over the world lol

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#503

Post by actionfromafar »

RugnirViking wrote: post #440
AlecSchueler wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because "why not?" Do we understand that humanity includes Chinese people? Do we also understand A) the steps they're already taking to reduce emissions and B) how much of their emissions historically and today are in service of Western consumers?

i don't accept arguments in the form of B when its a business (our pollution is just serving our customers demand, its their moral responsibility to reduce consumption), and I also don't accept it in country form. centralisation makes centralised opporunity for change. You have all the power, and also all the responsibility.

Centralisation also comes with upkeep necessary to maintain centralisation. The cost of that upkeep can severaly limit opportunity for change. If you are a dictator, staying in power is priority one, at the cost of everything else.

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#504

Post by puszczyk »

tomp wrote: post #442
Muromec wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Western democracies at this point can't do anything at that even hints at minimally inconveniencing 5% of the population. Any 5% at that. We are stuck in local maximum even if it slowly and surely slides into the shitter

Pretty much everything the EU does, is inconveniencing most of its population, often in the name of "climate change" (while not actually making any impact). Positives: no mobile roaming charges Negatives: - less efficient home appliances (dishwasher, washing machine, drier) - cookie law - car annoyances (e.g. "beep if over the speed limit") - paper straws - attached bottle caps - LED lights - expensive electricity (a…

Have you ever visited the EU? Let me help you with the positives: common market, freedom of movement, rule of law, clean and beautiful cities and towns.

Also, war is costly—so is preparedness. Sometimes you don’t have a choice, e.g. you have a strong polity neighboring you that insists your are by gods grace their zone of influence.

I’m sad about nuclear to, but that’s on a culture in specific countries; not on Brussels.

Also, there’s heaps of mistakes in the regulations they churn, but that’s another story.

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#505

Post by shrubby »

jjav wrote: post #438
Muromec wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Western democracies at this point can't do anything at that even hints at minimally inconveniencing 5% of the population. Any 5% at that. We are stuck in local maximum even if it slowly and surely slides into the shitter

> even hints at minimally inconveniencing 5% of the population 5%? No. That's a lot of people. At least in the USA, the one and only thing that matters is what benefits the top 0.0002% richest (approximate percentage of billionares in the US). Nobody else matters anymore.

Yes. Nietzsche once said God is dead and I guess the time has come to say "the systemic change is dead".

Our destiny is not decided by a abstract superorganism, but a handful of people given godly rights create the rulebook. And to take us with them in the pursuit of suicide.

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#506

Post by piokoch »

pfisch wrote: post #173
neom wrote: post #10

BBC did a pretty good deep dive a few days ago on what we're in for: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xZCh8eDZFc DW also, similar stuff, but the guest is quite good: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dcl5Mn373Oc Anton Petrov covered it from a much more science lens a couple months back: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRoU3whzX_Q

The eu is stupid for not engaging in active climate engineering right now. They are the most at risk and should take decisive action before they end up living in a glacier. All the downvotes are just showing why no action is being taken even though right now we are literally terraforming the planet with no plan, and it is going to stop the transatlantic currents that keep Europe from becoming arctic. But sure, just d…

Sorry, but what? EU literally destroyed its economy by forcing "green energy", so manufacturing was moved to Asia (who cannot care less about climate and uses whatever cheap energy source thy have so this was a rather stupid move), ETS and ETS-2 systems are putting huge taxes on EU citizens for any kind of emission, including building a house or having non-zero emission flat or house.

The "little" problem here is that all of this does not matter at all, as EU is emitting insignificant amount of CO2, comparing to Asia or USA.

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#507

Post by frozenwind »

convolvatron wrote: post #137
jgord wrote: post #125

Recent studies estimate climate warming is happening faster than it was, ballpark +0.3C per decade. As we are at or nearing +1.5C now, with global emissions at an all time high [ perhaps peaking soon ] theres a good chance we are headed toward +2.6C by ~2060. Keep in mind the CO2 stays up there for a long time, centuries, so when we get to net-zero its max-CO2 and therefore max-heat.

does it stop? the more co2 the more heat is retained. so the relation between co2 and temperature is an integral over time. were we suddenly to stop burning things how far does it go up before infrared emissions equilibrate with the larger thermal flux? that and the lower albedo and other knockoff effects may continue to make things worse even if we were to stop.

Perhaps there are other mechanisms at play here? What about the AMOC collapse. IF too much heat disrupts some weather patterns which are heating the northenr emisphere, that would mean an increase in the ice cover again and therefore more heat reflection again.

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#508

Post by sfn42 »

consumer451 wrote: post #361
red75prime wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What if >99% scientific consensus says that that org's upper atmo sulfur injection led to to the most insane monsoon/desertification That's unrealistic. Climate models aren't good enough to predict the regional-level consequences of large-scale interventions (not to mention that scientists are people, and they might be averse to creating an international flashpoint). Realistically, it will create/exacerbate interna…

> It's a risky approach, but, when the consequences of climate change will become undeniably bad, some countries might try. That will be far too late. I mean, nearly the entire EU has reached record temps this year... if not now, then when? Wait until AMOC stops? Does anyone have any idea the havoc that this will create? We will be a dry arctic climate. Ireland and UK first, the rest of us next. We need multiple Manh…

> we cannot pray for Norwegian money

Just for the record, our oil fund is "only" about $2.2 trillion. It's huge relative to our population and huge in general, but it would quickly dry up if divided among all of EU. Even just divided among Norwegians it would "only" amount to like $500k per person.

So sure it's a lot of money but it's also not really as astronomical as many seem to think. Elon Musk alone is almost worth half that and will probably catch up if things continue the way they are.

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#509

Post by internet_points »

YZF wrote: post #141
cdrnsf wrote: post #7

Meanwhile governments are electing to either do nothing or actively make the problem worse (particularly in the case of the US — expanding fossil fuel extraction, pushing data center build out and attacking renewables like wind).

Solar energy is the fastest growing source of energy in the US. That's because it's also the cheapest source of energy. So markets are working. https://abcnews.com/US/solar-generates-energy-coal-us-1st-ti... "Solar and storage provided 90% of all new power added in the U.S." is mind blowing. How about we give the US credit for this? Fossil fuel extraction is not the problem. The problem is fossil fuel usage. Given th…

hah https://abcnews.com/US/solar-generates-energy-coal-us-1st-ti... ends with

> Trump has touted coal as clean in the past, but experts say coal emits carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, and several other pollutants.

Wow, experts say coal emits carbon dioxide. What a world we live in where that's considered expert knowledge.

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#510

Post by ch4s3 »

rcpt wrote: post #203
ch4s3 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It comes from Our World in Data, highly reputable, and I included the source link.

I'm sure that figure is accurate. And the other person in this thread who commented "the entire energy consumption of two Swedens or half a Thailand" is probably also accurate. It's not about accuracy, it's about the units people choose when having these discussions

I lead with 1.5% of global electricity use. But its import to contextualiza that normal AI usage requires less electricity than an evening of watching TV.
Post reply on HN