Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal” • Hacker News Board

Re: Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”

#171

Post by runarberg » Fri, Jun 16, 2023, 11:07 PM UTC

_ea1k wrote: post #107

ip26 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1870, 2010, 2023, ????

1870, 2010, 2023, 2146, ????

So what is you point here? That warming planet is not likely to increase the rate of New York suffering smokes? Honestly this would put New York in a pretty special place as forest fires are set to increase a lot, and smokes are expected to distribute in higher density to wider areas. This is pretty observable on the West Coast already, where we have a brand new Smoke Season in the early to late autumn in the Pacific North West.

But realistically New York will not be this lucky, and the chances of the next smokes coming as distantly apart as per-industrialization is probably close to 0. I’m not a climate scientist but I bet we will for sure see several more smokes coming to New York before the end of the century (just like we have on the West Coast in the past 5 years).

Re: Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”

#172

Post by blooalien » Fri, Jun 16, 2023, 11:18 PM UTC

lamontcg wrote: post #152

PheonixPharts wrote: post #87

While I agree with the title, I think the author misses the real reason not to refer to the "New Normal". David Wallace-Wells sums it up pretty well: > It is tempting to look at these strings of disasters and think, Climate change is here ... this is how California governor Jerry Brown first described the state of things in the midst of the state's wildfire disaster: "a new normal" > The truth is actually much scarie…

I thought it was obvious that "The New Normal" was sarcastic/ironic and the steady drumbeats of "New Normals" implied everything was getting worse via a ratchet effect.

Exactly how I've been reading it. "The New Normal" is that "normal" is no longer a thing (if "normal" ever even really existed outside of mathematics/statistics).

Re: Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”

#173

Post by op00to » Sat, Jun 17, 2023, 9:03 PM UTC

bequanna wrote: post #89

op00to wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Omega Block is a "strange" weather pattern compared to the usual configuration of the jet stream. It is unusual and surprising. I didn't say it was new, rare, or uprecedented. It's possible for a weather event to be "normal" (something we see from time to time) but also triggered or more likely ehanced by anthropogenic climage change. Hurricanes aren't anything new, and devastating hurricanes earlier and later in…

> It doesn't need to be raining locusts for things to be really messed up. Fair enough, but what is the metric for calling something "due to climate change"? Because it seems to me that currently the blame for every drop of rain that falls above (or below) average is directly ascribed to the evil people in the suburbs driving their cars.

Right, well. In that case, I suppose we shouldn't do anything at all.

The issue isn't that something is "due to climate change". This is a false choice: "either it's due to climate change, or it's not". The extra energy in the atmosphere doesn't pick and choose where to apply itself. Every weather pattern is affected by climate change. Everything has its gain knob turned up a little more each year.

Re: Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”

#174

Post by defrost » Mon, Jun 19, 2023, 2:10 AM UTC

pixel3234 wrote: post #26

defrost wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Accuracy, please. During the peak of the last Ice Age (~20,000 years ago), sea level was ~120 m lower than today. As a consequence of global warming, albeit naturally, the rate of sea-level rise averaged ~1.2 cm per year for 10,000 years until it levelled off at roughly today's position ~10,000 years ago. [1] The important part being things have been stable for a very long time wrt human history . All our established…

Fair enough, I checked it was 60 meters, not 100m [1] However I do not buy "stable for a very long time wrt human history" . There was little ice age in 17th century. 11th century had very warm and fertile weather in Scandinavia, population boom and Vikings... We can go into Egyptian history and droughts that lasted centuries... Entire Sahara was garden in living memory, when pyramids were build... > take action to m…

The link you provided doesn't support your claim of any particuly substantial change in global sea levels within the past 10,000 years.

The hodge podge collection of minor localised climate cell changes had little impact on the general stability of global climate parameters during the past 10,000 years. (You're rather overstating the chill spell in Europe for example).

Do you think that buying a Telsa will solve the pressing climate issues?

I don't follow your reasoning there.

> We will have to drastically reduce our life standards. Not to "take action" but to live within our means!

I'm not in the US and I suspect I may very well live with a lower carbon impact than most in G20 countries.

Re: Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”

#175

Post by _ea1k » Mon, Jun 19, 2023, 3:29 AM UTC

runarberg wrote: post #171

_ea1k wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1870, 2010, 2023, 2146, ????

So what is you point here? That warming planet is not likely to increase the rate of New York suffering smokes? Honestly this would put New York in a pretty special place as forest fires are set to increase a lot, and smokes are expected to distribute in higher density to wider areas. This is pretty observable on the West Coast already, where we have a brand new Smoke Season in the early to late autumn in the Pacific…

My point is that sequences like that are insufficient to draw conclusions.

Re: Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”

#176

Post by hnbad » Mon, Jun 19, 2023, 8:01 AM UTC

starbugs wrote: post #7

How about not calling something a crisis if it isn't? A crisis is usually short-lived, not a permanent state.

That's why a lot of activists seem to have taken to calling it the "climate catastrophe" or the "climate disaster" I guess. "Climate change" is just another way to say "new normal".

Re: Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”

#177

Post by runarberg » Tue, Jun 20, 2023, 1:55 AM UTC

_ea1k wrote: post #175

runarberg wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what is you point here? That warming planet is not likely to increase the rate of New York suffering smokes? Honestly this would put New York in a pretty special place as forest fires are set to increase a lot, and smokes are expected to distribute in higher density to wider areas. This is pretty observable on the West Coast already, where we have a brand new Smoke Season in the early to late autumn in the Pacific…

My point is that sequences like that are insufficient to draw conclusions.

Maybe so, but I don’t think your parent was drawing any conclusions, just pointing out the very likely scenario that these smokes will happen with increased frequency, or at least, that’s how I understood it.

Re: Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”

#178

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jun 20, 2023, 7:15 AM UTC

hnbad wrote: post #176

starbugs wrote: post #7

How about not calling something a crisis if it isn't? A crisis is usually short-lived, not a permanent state.

That's why a lot of activists seem to have taken to calling it the "climate catastrophe" or the "climate disaster" I guess. "Climate change" is just another way to say "new normal".

[deleted]

Re: Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”

#179

Post by starbugs » Tue, Jun 20, 2023, 7:26 AM UTC

hnbad wrote: post #176

starbugs wrote: post #7

How about not calling something a crisis if it isn't? A crisis is usually short-lived, not a permanent state.

That's why a lot of activists seem to have taken to calling it the "climate catastrophe" or the "climate disaster" I guess. "Climate change" is just another way to say "new normal".

Initially, it wasn't. Every new term is new only for a certain time. The way these terms are being used in the media can lead to semantic bleaching, which is why from time to time new terms are made up.

In the end, this doesn't change anything about what it is. It's a somewhat slow process with a big lag between action and outcome. Using terms to describe this that typically are reserved for events that are fundamentally different in nature (much shorter time scales, short lag between actions and outcome, etc.) is counter productive.

We have to grow up and learn to look at it from a calm, non-panicky view point and take action where action makes sense in the context of our lives (not only from a reductionist view point that only looks at the climate and nothing else). Maybe even more importantly, we have to learn how to be fine with not taking action where it doesn't make sense and would come with a high probability of making things worse.