201–210 of 249 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> “On record” usually means since we started recording history , at least 5k years ago. I'm a journalist who has published "highest/lowest on record" statistics tens, if not hundreds of times, and I've never heard of anyone thinking it means "since Herodotus" or anything like that.
How would readers know the reference point unless you inform them. Of course they will defer to colloquialisms . In some cases 5000 years , some 1000 years . With something as broad and impactful as this, they certainly assume more than 150 years .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would readers know the reference point unless you inform them. Of course they will defer to colloquialisms . In some cases 5000 years , some 1000 years . With something as broad and impactful as this, they certainly assume more than 150 years .
They would know by reading beyond the headline. I am not aware of the colloquialism as you describe it.
There are, of course, many records - newspaper records, human logged records of conditions that day, and human created records of proxy data - ice cores, dendrochronology, cosmic ray induced crystal formation in beach sand, etc.
Is there a real practical solution to this? It seems like all proposed solutions in last 40 years are a drop in the ocean, or just a money grab scams. Only thing that really worked for such global scale is the ozone layer repair. Global warming/climate change I guess we should just accept it and adapt?
There is developing real practical solutions, and then there there is the willingness of governments, big corporations, and the general population, to implement real practical solutions. The latter is much much harder than the former.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Doomerist paralysis has been engineered by the folks who look to benefit the most from inaction, mainly the fossil fuel and related industries. To not even attempt to head for the lifeboats is suicide.
Exactly what is it about CO2, a plant food, that scares you so much? You do realize that green plants react to increased CO2 percentage with stronger growth? You're the one calling me a "doomer"?
Wow, a shocking amount of climate change denialism in this thread. Honestly what I expected from HN readership.
It's more that such titles attract the denialists and edgelords like bees to sucrose.
Lack of significant action is more a majority position, and that's unsuprising given many people struggle with how to make meaningful change as individuals or accept greater risk and reduced returns as C-suits of corporations.
Whenever you hear a politician say "carbon neutral by 2050", interrupt them. The real goal is to avoid getting too far over 1.5 degrees warming. We need to avoid reaching tipping points that will cause non-recoverable damage to the earth system. The year 2050 is meaningless. Actual global average temperatures is what should be measured.
Wow, a shocking amount of climate change denialism in this thread. Honestly what I expected from HN readership.
Denialism is not the majority position of the readership as a whole in my experience. It's more that such titles attract the denialists and edgelords like bees to sucrose. Lack of significant action is more a majority position, and that's unsuprising given many people struggle with how to make meaningful change as individuals or accept greater risk and reduced returns as C-suits of corporations.