Scientists caught off-guard by record temperatures linked to climate change • Hacker News Board

Re: Scientists caught off-guard by record temperatures linked to climate change

#141

Post by vkou » Wed, Jul 27, 2016, 3:33 PM UTC

jsingleton wrote: post #88

cconcepts wrote: post #9

I have no doubt that climate change is a problem. I have kids, I dont want to give them a hospital pass. I've tried to stop living such a carbon dependant lifestyle but I look outside and my efforts feel futile. How do I REALLY do something about this other than a few pretentious yet barely discomforting lifestyle changes and the odd empassioned few sentences at dinner parties? Start pushing for a carbon tax? Start a…

You can do a lot in your own life that will also save you money. I won't go into too much detail because, as you note, this has a small effect unless lots of people do it. But some simple ideas that are cheap and boring. - Eat less meat or cut it out fully (or at least not every day) - Fly less and use long distance trains where you can - Insulate your property to reduce energy use - Ride a bicycle and take public tr…

This is like saying that you can help avoid another financial meltdown like 2008 by not taking out mortgages on homes you can't afford... And by divesting from AIG.

While in some sense, this is technically correct, it does not actually address the problem.

Much as with the financial crisis, what we have here is a case of the 80/20 rule - or rather, the 99.99980/0.00020 rule. 0.00020% of the people have almost all the power to combat global warming. (They aren't using it.)

Re: Scientists caught off-guard by record temperatures linked to climate change

#142

Post by pjc50 » Wed, Jul 27, 2016, 3:36 PM UTC

Brakenshire wrote: post #77

gst wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO the problem is that most sides in the discussion don't propose any viable solutions: On one side there are the climate change deniers (and the people who don't care about it). They are fine to continue business as usual. On the other side there are the people who are concerned about climate change. But instead of agreeing to effective solutions (compromises) that allow us to somewhat mitigate global warming (such…

I don't think the two sides you describe are correct, at least globally. In the UK, 70-80% of people agree that anthropogenic climate change is happening, and the Green party (who have the kind of position you're describing) only get 5% of the vote. You're presenting everyone who thinks that action needs to be taken as part of a much smaller, unrepresentative group. Also, I agree that flat blocking of nuclear is unre…

There's a big gap between "something should be done" and "we should do this specific thing" in which so much politics must happen.

Really the UK needs some kind of energy strategy other than hoping for the market and the Large Combustion Plant directive to sort it out. It needs to be a "yes, and" strategy - there's no reason to set up a dichotomy between renewables and nuclear, that merely prevents progress on either. We need to keep provisioning renewables until the night-time issue becomes significant. Really we ought to have done more with tidal and wave power rather than allow Pelamis to become bankrupt.

Personally I have 4kW of solar on my roof and take a bus to work.

Re: Scientists caught off-guard by record temperatures linked to climate change

#143

Post by pjc50 » Wed, Jul 27, 2016, 3:38 PM UTC

CWuestefeld wrote: post #106

sdoering wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is, that if it isn't anthropomorphic, then there is (at least in some peoples' minds) nothing to do about it and we can safely ignore it. We can keep doing our stuff without second thoughts. So "finger pointing" to humanity isn't that bad of a tactic to get things done.

You seem to be arguing that if there were an asteroid that's going to collide with the earth, we would all ignore it.

In the present day, if there were an asteroid that could only be prevented by permanently ending certain lucrative businesses?

There would be a massive media campaign to discredit observations of the asteroid, and dismissal of concerns about it, and someone would run for president on an explicit platform of asteroid denial.

Re: Scientists caught off-guard by record temperatures linked to climate change

#144

Post by cpncrunch » Wed, Jul 27, 2016, 3:39 PM UTC

radiorental wrote: post #136

cpncrunch wrote: post #118

What is this data based on? From my own experience, living on Vancouver Island, temperatures this summer have been much cooler than in recent years. This summer has been almost exactly average in temp, compared to above average for the last few years. Looking at accuweather's data (www.accuweather.com, search for a city, then click 'month'), virtually everywhere in the US has been pretty much bang on the average temp…

What drought? it rained in my town today.

I didn't mention drought. And why am I getting downvoted for asking a valid question?

Re: Scientists caught off-guard by record temperatures linked to climate change

#145

Post by wccrawford » Wed, Jul 27, 2016, 3:41 PM UTC

CWuestefeld wrote: post #95

Brakenshire wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the two sides you describe are correct, at least globally. In the UK, 70-80% of people agree that anthropogenic climate change is happening, and the Green party (who have the kind of position you're describing) only get 5% of the vote. You're presenting everyone who thinks that action needs to be taken as part of a much smaller, unrepresentative group. Also, I agree that flat blocking of nuclear is unre…

flat blocking of nuclear is unreasonable. But in my opinion disagreement on the issue is a relatively marginal issue in the general sweep of tackling climate change. The new DNC platform coming out of the convention this week doesn't seem to agree with you. It focuses solely on renewable sources, sweeping nuclear under the carpet. 70-80% of people agree that anthropogenic climate change is happening I don't understan…

As to the importance of the term "anthropogenic"...

If we aren't causing it (or contributing significantly), then stopping what we're doing won't fix it. So yes, it's important to the conversation that we're actually causing the problem.

Re: Scientists caught off-guard by record temperatures linked to climate change

#146

Post by pjc50 » Wed, Jul 27, 2016, 3:45 PM UTC

adrianN wrote: post #108

NumberCruncher wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Reducing the population takes a lot longer. There are also involuntary reduction methods...

As the saying goes: you first.

No, it'll be the refugees first.

The problems of the middle east aren't just religious, the region has seen huge population growth in the 20th century beyond the ability of its natural resources to sustain it. This is not hyperbole, Yemen is running out of water.

If it's 54C outside in Kuwait, how habitable is that really? What if it's three or four degrees hotter?

Re: Scientists caught off-guard by record temperatures linked to climate change

#147

Post by BryantD » Wed, Jul 27, 2016, 3:55 PM UTC

CWuestefeld wrote: post #95

Brakenshire wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the two sides you describe are correct, at least globally. In the UK, 70-80% of people agree that anthropogenic climate change is happening, and the Green party (who have the kind of position you're describing) only get 5% of the vote. You're presenting everyone who thinks that action needs to be taken as part of a much smaller, unrepresentative group. Also, I agree that flat blocking of nuclear is unre…

flat blocking of nuclear is unreasonable. But in my opinion disagreement on the issue is a relatively marginal issue in the general sweep of tackling climate change. The new DNC platform coming out of the convention this week doesn't seem to agree with you. It focuses solely on renewable sources, sweeping nuclear under the carpet. 70-80% of people agree that anthropogenic climate change is happening I don't understan…

It focuses solely on renewable sources, sweeping nuclear under the carpet.

This is not entirely accurate. First, I wish the platform mentioned nuclear explicitly; I think that would be healthy. However, while renewable energy sources get a mention, the focus is on "clean power." The platform directly endorses the Clean Power Plan, which has a significant role for nuclear power: https://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/fact-sheet-clean-power-pl...

Nuclear power is part of an "all the above" energy strategy that supports economic growth and job creation, enhances our nation's energy security, and protects the planet for future generations. The Clean Power Plan (CPP) ensures that zero carbon nuclear power will continue to play a prominent and meaningful role in America’s energy mix.

It's absolutely true that the platform doesn't highlight the need for nuclear energy, but it's certainly not about blocking nuclear energy either.

Re: Scientists caught off-guard by record temperatures linked to climate change

#148

Post by Chathamization » Wed, Jul 27, 2016, 4:01 PM UTC

throwanem wrote: post #138

Chathamization wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which countries? China is usually the one that gets mentioned the most for really pushing nuclear (which they've been doing for years now), but they're currently at about 3% and are hoping to reach 4% by 2020. And even at this pace, they're facing serious problems[1][2]. [1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-01-11/china-shou... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/aug/25/wikileak...

"Serious problems" is pretty disingenuous. They're facing increased risk as a result of using updated 2nd-generation technology, rather than licensing the Westinghouse AP-1000 design at enormous cost. They're aware of the chance they're taking, but they also seem to consider that less of a risk than being beholden to a US firm. Whether that's an accurate assessment in the long run or not, it's their choice to make, a…

Different people have different opinions, but I would personally consider these serious issues:

> The country should set a 2020 ceiling on reactors in operation at 70,000 megawatts to avoid a shortfall of fuel, equipment and qualified plant workers

> "By bypassing the passive safety technology of the AP1000, which, according to Westinghouse, is 100 times safer than the CPR-1000, China is vastly increasing the aggregate risk of its nuclear power fleet. "

And this is just trying to increase nuclear from ~3% to ~4%.

Maybe the U.S. would do things much better, but we should keep in mind that we just had the first new reactor come online in 20 years. And in that case, it was mostly built in the 80's (construction was halted), it's sister reactor was already running at the plant (since '96), and it still took 9 years to complete (and it's still being tested, it's not commercial yet).

The argument that a main component - some people even seem to argue the main component - of the fight against climate is a large scale switch over to nuclear seems completely divorced from reality.

Re: Scientists caught off-guard by record temperatures linked to climate change

#149

Post by yequalsx » Wed, Jul 27, 2016, 4:06 PM UTC

CWuestefeld wrote: post #99

yequalsx wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only viable, realistic solution is for people to stop having as many children as they currently do. The population of the planet is beyond carrying capacity at current levels of consumption.

The Malthusian argument is threadbare and false. Humanity has always been on the brink of demise. We've always been barely able to feed our people. This took us from hunter-gatherers to the development of agriculture, on to irrigation, fertilization, terraced farming, crop rotation, selective breeding, genetic manipulation. In terms of energy, as we depleted the forests of wood for burning, we've gone through similar…

I'm not making a Malthsian argument. I'm stating a fact. At current levels of consumption (which includes much more than food) we are beyond carrying capacity of the planet. Technology may eventually make this a false statement but it currently isn't false.

There is much more to living than just food. That we can grow enough food is not a persuasive argument that there aren't too many people on the planet. People shit, pollute, destroy, and consume.

Re: Scientists caught off-guard by record temperatures linked to climate change

#150

Post by akiselev » Wed, Jul 27, 2016, 4:11 PM UTC

CWuestefeld wrote: post #116

akiselev wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the Morning Strawman Award goes to... drum roll ... CWuestefeld. If it's anthropogenic then it is a brand new phenomena in geological time and will throw many ecological systems into disarray or destroy them completely because they never evolved the adaptations. If it's not anthropogenic, then no big deal this is a regular cyclical warm period that the Earth goes through naturally. If it's a natural cycle that we…

If it's not anthropogenic, then no big deal this is a regular cyclical warm period that the Earth goes through naturally. Your conclusion doesn't follow. Just because man didn't create it [1] doesn't mean that it's necessarily cyclical. The earth has changed in many ways in its lifetime. Some of those changes are indeed parts of cycles. Other changes are strictly one-way. [1] hypothetically; I'm not actually making t…

If its neither cyclical nor anthropogenic then what can we do about it other than adapt to higher temperatures? If it's not human caused than there is nothing we can do short of geoengineering on a mind boggling scale which makes no sense. If centuries of industrialization haven't caused climate change then what's the chance that we can reverse a natural process on a planetary scale?