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

541–550 of 696 posts

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#541

Post by Windchaser »

ColdStream wrote: post #297
Windchaser wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not only are we heading there it might be a lot quicker than we anticipate. The warming is accelerating quickly as the CO2 is cumulative and the feed back loops get more intense. The last decade has seen a 0.48c increase in temperature and due to the decade base line shifting every year and it is increasing in pace. https://www.intelligentliving.co/global-warming-acceleration... The more realistic climate scientists…

> The more realistic climate scientists think we will blow past 2c by roughly 2035. We are on track to 3c by 2050

I keep hearing this, but not from the climate science community, but from laypeople. I don't understand it. I haven't yet heard reasonable physical mechanisms that would push us past 3C by 2050, when the mean expectation from major models is still ~2.7C by 2100.

We haven't even hit 1.5C yet, not as a running decadal-ish average, using "1.5C target" the way that climate scientists traditionally meant it. How are we going to add another 1.5C in the next 25 years? That'd require 0.65C/decade. I don't understand it. The math ain't mathin'.

For what it's worth, the link you cite talks about the reasons for the acceleration. But some of those reasons (El Nino, aerosols) lead to one-off pops that don't translate to higher long-term trends. Meaning, it would be reasonable to guess that the recent acceleration will taper off some, and we'll head back towards 0.2 - 0.25 C/decade from the current 0.35C/decade. But even if we keep up the current 0.35C/decade, we aren't getting to +3C until ~2075.

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#542

Post by 0xy »

Varelion wrote: post #519
0xy wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not aggressively using water. That figure was a lie produced by a likely CCP spy, and later retracted ("oops!"). [1] [1] https://x.com/tbpn/status/1990950527128252856

Irrelevant. https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/data-centers-and-water-co...

A spy overstating water usage by 1,000x to influence opinion is not relevant to a discussion on the very thing they overstated and started the debate on? How do you figure that?

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#543

Post by 0xy »

lovich wrote: post #371
0xy wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Completely false and epic revisionism. 96.6% of all new energy sources in the US from 2024 to 2026 were green. Nuclear, batteries, solar, wind, hydro. You know people can just look this stuff up right?

But the government is still paying billions of dollars to end renewable projects because they dont like said contracts, right?

Cool, I prefer hard energy data rather than anecdotes.

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#544

Post by ilikecode »

sfn42 wrote: post #527
Valakas_ wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I thought "just plant more trees!" and found this helpful article https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-many-new-trees-would-we-...

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#545

Post by 0xy »

Windchaser wrote: post #537
0xy wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

96.6% of new energy capacity in the US came from green sources from 2024 to 2026 (nuclear, batteries, wind, hydro, solar). In China, in that time period, they built 52 brand new coal plants.

Sure. But again, compare our current GHG emissions per capita. Or set aside new electrical energy capacity, and instead look at other GHG sources: automobiles, agriculture, concrete. Are we doing well there? Mostly, no, not great, and we should be much further along in decarbonizing than we are. For the most part, the US has not taken ACC seriously.

US emissions has declined in real terms since 2000, and has plummeted rapidly on a per capita basis.

So, yeah, all of those sources have declined in emissions. Particularly automobiles, as the US pioneered EV development.

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#546

Post by chinathrow »

leonidasrup wrote: post #540
pfisch wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"The EU’s Climate Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra warns that to prevent costs from spiraling further, European governments must start investing massive sums in measures to climate-proof their countries, known as adaptation." https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-climate-adaptation-spendi...

We probabbly must do all three things at once

- adapt

- stop rising CO2 levels

- remove CO2 from the atmosphere

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#548

Post by Yizahi »

wing-_-nuts wrote: post #533
Yizahi wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a tiny problem with that hypothesis - there are I think at most 3 potentially viable climate reversal options - DAC, sun shield and aerosol injection in the atmosphere. All 3 options are likely cost through the nose and will require sums and efforts on a global scale. Any single country attempting them on its own, would require to set aside double digit amounts of its GDP for decades, effectively crippling i…

I've seen estimates of the cost of sulfide injection to be about 2-3B / yr / 1C. That's not outside of the capability of a country like India, much less China

I saw those too. They look wildly optimistic, on top of being based on a wildly optimistic efficiency of the aerosols themselves, compounding the issue. But even assuming that - I read that multiple tens of megatons of aerosols need to be dispersed each year, on a regular basis. That alone doesn't look like a 2-3 measly billion job. Just a small fleet of 10 old narrowbody jets would cost at least 1 billion per year to operate. And someone need to prepare all that reagents, ship them, construct machinery etc. Then there is a problem that GH gas emissions are constantly rising and old gasses are not removed, so the heating accelerates. What requires 10-20Mt of aerosols today, will require more in a decade, then even even more and more. And as soon as injection stop, we are back to square 1 and heating will resume even harder.

Now that I think about - this is actually a motivation for China to do all that expenses. Establish themselves as a monopoly caretaker of the program, wait out until alternative programs will ramp down due to lowering interest, and then start blackmailing the world to conform to their demands or else they will stop injecting sulfur. That would be an incredible power play :) .

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#549

Post by [deleted] »

Muromec wrote: post #246
pfisch wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

[deleted]

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#550

Post by dgellow »

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…

It’s far from being only an EU or European issue. It’s not like Europe can by itself do something to avoid the collapse of the Atlantic Gulf Stream.
Post reply on HN