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

651–660 of 696 posts

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#651

Post by Garora »

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…

Markets arent going to fix this problem. Solar panels didnt get cheap by magic, they got cheap by investments backed by politics.

No modern market is truly free, government loans, subsidies, taxes ect all impact the direction of the market and every single one of them has been used at one point or another to push the market in a certain direction

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#652

Post by Garora »

Quarrelsome wrote: post #286
floro wrote: post #100

The biggest lie we're being told in the west is that we have a hand in climate change. China produces 60% of global Co2. When you look at the graph, Europe isn't even visible. If we truly cared about climate change we would stop buying from China. But we all know this won't ever happen because we don't really care enough. It's just virtue signaling. Buy an AC you're not saving the planet by sweating your ass off.

go to shop, notice that much food has been flown in from the four corners of the earth just to satisfy you. Go home, look at all the objects in your house, do the same thing. Then tell you that this has nothing to do with you.

Food transportation is a very low percentage of the food's footprint, what you eat is more important, but you dont want to hink about it

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#653

Post by D_Alex »

maxhille wrote: post #646
D_Alex wrote: post #645

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? Do you have a credible source for this?

The Wikipedia article cites a long list of reputable news outlets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022%E2%80%932023_Russia%E2%80...

But it doesn’t support your claim.

In summary, Russia, after having their dollar and euro bank accounts frozen, demanded payment in roubles. It stopped supplying the gas to the customers who weren’t paying. After that, the EU announced it will stop buying Russian gas completely, and replaced it with LNG.

Thus increasing the greenhouse gas emissions attributed to its gas use by about 60%. :(

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#654

Post by maxhille »

D_Alex wrote: post #653
maxhille wrote: post #646

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Wikipedia article cites a long list of reputable news outlets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022%E2%80%932023_Russia%E2%80...

But it doesn’t support your claim. In summary, Russia, after having their dollar and euro bank accounts frozen, demanded payment in roubles. It stopped supplying the gas to the customers who weren’t paying. After that, the EU announced it will stop buying Russian gas completely, and replaced it with LNG. Thus increasing the greenhouse gas emissions attributed to its gas use by about 60%. :(

"My" claim:

> Putin ("Russia") turned off the gas

Your summary:

> Russia [...] stopped supplying the gas. [...]

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#655

Post by meta-level »

lbriner wrote: post #2

When I was younger, I remember thinking, "a few degrees, what difference does that make?" Then when I grew older I realised that in Climate science a few degrees is the difference between survival and annihilation. A few degrees warmer in the ocean and El Niño becomes an incredible problem for half the world. I am glad that I live far away from the effects but it is sad to think of people losing all kinds of things f…

reminds me of https://xkcd.com/1379/

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#656

Post by senordevnyc »

sfn42 wrote: post #648
senordevnyc wrote: post #632

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are these technical problems insurmountable, particularly over 50 years?

We've already been doing it for 50 years, and the pinnacle of achievement in the field is a facility being built in Texas that is planning to sequester 500,000 tons of CO2 annually. The world produces over 38 billion tons of CO2 a year. Assuming they reach their target performance, we would need 38bn/500k=76,000 of these facilities just to offset our current emissions. The number of "power generating facilities" in t…

You seem really upset at the mere suggestion that this might be feasible one day. Why?

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#657

Post by siffin »

Windchaser wrote: post #541
ColdStream wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 run…

If you're following climate science for the past couple of decades, you will have heard that from climate scientists.

The reason you don't hear it normally is because laypeople like yourself don't understand you're being propogandised to, by climate scientists like Michael Mann.

If you look at climate scientists who aren't liars, like James Hansen, and don't use models with things like fantasy CCS in them (all mainstream climate models - designed to minimise bad outcomes in every imagineable way possible), you get the temperature rises we're seeing now. That's why everyone has been so panicked this whole time, trying to stop this like crazy.

Many laypeople understand this, they understand the real science, and that they are being lied to from every angle about how bad it is.

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#658

Post by jurgenburgen »

pfisch wrote: post #613
jurgenburgen wrote: post #609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we can’t even switch away from fossils then where do we get the magical political will to build a massive, untested system that needs constant maintenance indefinitely to keep our environment stable? Our governments don’t seem to even be able to sustain consensus for a single election cycle, active geoengineering projects would require committing to keep doing it for decades, centuries or however long it takes to…

Switching away from fossil fuels is a gigantic ask compared to having some planes release a ton of reflective particles into the atmosphere. It isn't even expensive. 15-30 billion per year would be enough to cause 1 degree Celsius of cooling by having planes put SO2 into the atmosphere. Double that for 2 degrees. That is way less than the EU has given to Ukraine.

Quadruple for 4 degrees? Or is the cost exponential? What happens when some right-wing nut jobs take power and decide to kill this woke geoengineering because climate change is just a conspiracy? Will we get to experience decades worth of warming in one go? Meanwhile we just start burning even more fossils because climate change is “solved”?

I think we’re not that desperate yet. And whatever geoengineering is done we still need to solve the root cause.

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#659

Post by sfn42 »

senordevnyc wrote: post #656
sfn42 wrote: post #648

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've already been doing it for 50 years, and the pinnacle of achievement in the field is a facility being built in Texas that is planning to sequester 500,000 tons of CO2 annually. The world produces over 38 billion tons of CO2 a year. Assuming they reach their target performance, we would need 38bn/500k=76,000 of these facilities just to offset our current emissions. The number of "power generating facilities" in t…

You seem really upset at the mere suggestion that this might be feasible one day. Why?

I'm just explaining to you why this technology will almost certainly not solve the problem, it likely won't even make a dent in the problem.

I believe this is an important point to make because it looks to me like the primary effect (and maybe also intended effect?) of carbon capture efforts is to encourage complacency. "Don't worry about these emissions, we'll just slurp the CO2 back up later and fix everything".

It is orders of magnitude harder to remove the CO2 that it is to emit it. Relying on "future technology" to save us is a prayer not a plan.

What if there is no solution? Do you understand that we are talking about the very imminent end of the world? Literally a complete collapse of human civilization, likely starting within this century. Maybe within our lifetimes.

"Let's hope someone finds a solution" is not enough. We have the solution, it is to stop emitting billions of tons of greenhouse gases every year. We just aren't doing it. So yeah, I find it just a little frustrating when people deny the problem, deny the severity of it, or claim that magic future technology will fix it. This is why we are in this position in the first place, because people do not take it seriously.

Re: Oceans hit highest temperature on record

#660

Post by Zambyte »

HDBaseT wrote: post #229
the_real_cher wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know. Banning internal combustion engines is a good first step.

I will kill myself the day I can no longer drive an internal combustion engine. I don't really see any purpose if we have to be confined to computer enabled cars with built in surveillance with no resemblance of quality, control or freedom.

For the sake of your mental health, please ride an e-bike.
Post reply on HN