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

521–530 of 696 posts

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#521

Post by reeredfdfdf »

consumer451 wrote: post #269
sva_ wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EU is not "most at risk" compared to eg south Asia, the middle east, parts of Africa, etc; and this idea that AMOC collapse will turn Europe into a glacier is a blatant exaggeration that does not root itself in reality.

As someone in Central EU farm land, who is currently experiencing desertification... We are actually in the worst place, given realtive population density. My well is drying up. The Danube and many other rivers are drying up. Then, when the AMOC stops, and we join Canadian weather with English-level insulation... we are all truly fucked in winter. At scale in the mid-term, only Sri Lanka is going to get as screwed as…

EU is rich, insulation problem can be handled, especially if we build enough green energy to bring down electricity prices, which makes even poorly insulated houses livable. I live in a Nordic country, and people have survived here for since nearly 10 000 years ago, soon after first ice age ended. If they could do it without any modern tech, Germans, French and the others will be okay.

I'm way more worried about food production.

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#522

Post by sokoloff »

RugnirViking wrote: post #513
sokoloff wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think looking at first derivative of emissions per capita is more important than absolute measure when thinking of the morality of polluting. If China’s per capita is lower than some other place, they’re doing better. The first derivative tells us that might become untrue, but countries with high historical emissions don’t get a pass because they’re lowering those high levels as compared to a lower emitting c…

china's historical total emissions will also surpass the US's pretty soon, on account of their nearly 3x as large population combined with their per capita emissions being nearly as high. and as mentioned, theirs is likely set to grow way faster. I agree extrapolating isn't always the best way to assign historical blame (for whatever that might mean), I do think it makes sense to use when thinking about what policies…

I believe that every person has just as much right to emit pollution in 2027 as every other person in 2027.

What that person emitted in 2025 has no bearing on their 2027 “allowance”.

We can certainly discuss how much is an appropriate, sustainable, or defensible per-person amount, but I’m only interested in the 2027 amounts, not the increase in their amount versus a prior period, nor in allowing past large emitters to continue at higher rates than past low-emitters.

(I think we strongly agree on your last paragraph’s point. That was the point of my GP post, but maybe it didn’t land somehow.)

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#523

Post by tpm »

RugnirViking wrote: post #512
lmz wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Re: emissions per capita - why should the Chinese be limited to a lower amount than the US citizens? They want a high standard of living too.

that might make sense in a world where the US has been chugging along emitting at a constant rate for many years, to maintain a certain standard of living.- but the reality is the US emissions has been going down for many years, while increasing their standard of living (arguable, but difficult to say that US standard of living is less than half of what it was in the 90s), while china is going up in emissions. I also…

So how much of US emissions is outsourced?

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#524

Post by tzs »

OroPla wrote: post #471
tzs wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Under per person the amount per person is the total amount we decide is acceptable for humanity to emit. Breeding more people doesn’t change the total. It just reduces the amount each person is allowed.

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#525

Post by ericd »

bigDinosaur wrote: post #514
adaml_623 wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia says invented in France and developed by the Germans and Japanese. Do you have some references for US involvement?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell#History "1954 – The first practical photovoltaic cell was publicly demonstrated at Bell Laboratories.[27] The inventors were Calvin Souther Fuller, Daryl Chapin and Gerald Pearson.[28]" The references are on Wikipedia. Maybe do the most basic thing in Wikipedia and click on some links to the related pages before asking for sources. One can still quibble that 'first practical'…

>(also, of course it was Bell Labs.)

Haha my exact reaction when I first found out.

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#526

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#527

Post by sfn42 »

Valakas_ wrote: post #492
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.

But in 50 years we'll defo have technology to remove that CO2.

We will not. Carbon capture is a joke. It does not work anywhere near the scale it's needed. We would need many times more capture facilities than we currently have power plants. And to run them we would need many times more power plants, not to mention all the construction emissions etc.

Carbon capture is completely infeasible. It's already too late anyway, our civilization is pretty much doomed barring some miracle.

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#528

Post by breakyerself »

thelastgallon wrote: post #313

With the growth in solar, it is easy to think that we can solve it, we just do more renewables, but the decline of fossil fuels is negligible: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:share:7438918221... Globally, fossil fuels supply 81.1% today (2023). Only marginally down from 81.4% in 2000. Fossil fuels are not on track to end by 2050. But rather in 4-10 centuries.

Not long ago fossil fuel use was growing exponentially. The fact that its flatlined is a major turn in the course of history. There's no reason it can't begin to decline exponentially at any time.

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#529

Post by breakyerself »

toasty228 wrote: post #443
thelastgallon wrote: post #313

With the growth in solar, it is easy to think that we can solve it, we just do more renewables, but the decline of fossil fuels is negligible: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:share:7438918221... Globally, fossil fuels supply 81.1% today (2023). Only marginally down from 81.4% in 2000. Fossil fuels are not on track to end by 2050. But rather in 4-10 centuries.

> With the growth in solar, it is easy to think that we can solve it, 90% of things you can buy/use would not exist without fossil fuels, including food, medicine, clothes, roads, tires, electronics, solar panels, windmills, etc.

Do not conflate fossil fuels with all petroleum products. With concern to global warming we are primarily concerned with things you light on fire to generate electricity. There's no reason to mention things that aren't being lit of fire.

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#530

Post by OroPla »

tzs wrote: post #524
OroPla wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Under per person the amount per person is the total amount we decide is acceptable for humanity to emit. Breeding more people doesn’t change the total. It just reduces the amount each person is allowed.

So when one part of the Earth decides to make more people another part of the Earth gets less?

If this really happened it would incentivize genocide against less developed nations.

Post reply on HN