Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

July was the hottest month ever recorded, according to Nasa

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 522 posts

Re: July was the hottest month ever recorded, according to Nasa

#231

Post by Angostura »

caseysoftware wrote: post #216
Retric wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you reduce net CO2 production by 90% you still get record temperatures year after year, but the rate of increase is dramatically smaller.

You mean "If you reduce CO2 production by 90% by humans " The analysis that I'm waiting to see is "of the global CO2 production each year, how much of it is due to humans?" If we contribute 90% of CO2 production, then reducing it may change things. If we contribute 10% of CO2 production, then even reducing our portion to zero, the overall change is near-negligible.

If my bath is overflowing, the only water I have to worry about is the relatively small volume coming over the edge - not the total amount of water in the bath.

The ecosystem produces vast amounts of CO2 ... and consumes a similarly vast amount. It is the imbalance that you need to worry about. And that imbalance is largely caused by humans either damaging CO2 sinks or releasing CO2 that ha been sequestered over the last few billion years

Re: July was the hottest month ever recorded, according to Nasa

#232

Post by imtringued »

Pitarou wrote: post #113
sevenless wrote: post #4

These maps are based on emission trends continuing, assuming no political action will be taken. But wouldn't a hotter world tend to exacerbate emission trends, with human needs for AC and desalination rising, plus forest fires? Moreover, there might be some tipping point for large scale methane release. The 'tail risk' to global warming has appreciable density a long way out.

If there's a methane tipping point, we may have already passed it. Have a look on YouTube, and you'll see people in Siberia happily creating fireballs by poking a stick in the ground and holding a lighter over the hole they've just created. And more methane is bubbling up from the Arctic continental shelf every year.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FM0hczFNDZI

Re: July was the hottest month ever recorded, according to Nasa

#233

Post by m_mueller »

nilved wrote: post #195
Retric wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The least safe new car in 2016 is vastly safer than the absolute best car produced in 1980. Remember, seat belts are a direct result of regulation mostly from US airforce testing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stapp

That doesn't matter unless you're arguing that it wouldn't have happened without a government and regulation. Most of the responsibilities of a government would be better handled and implemented by the private sector.

You seem to think that markets can do absolutely anything. Asymmetric information, unpaid externalities and other economic hazards are a thing.

Re: July was the hottest month ever recorded, according to Nasa

#234

Post by Retric »

caseysoftware wrote: post #216
Retric wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you reduce net CO2 production by 90% you still get record temperatures year after year, but the rate of increase is dramatically smaller.

You mean "If you reduce CO2 production by 90% by humans " The analysis that I'm waiting to see is "of the global CO2 production each year, how much of it is due to humans?" If we contribute 90% of CO2 production, then reducing it may change things. If we contribute 10% of CO2 production, then even reducing our portion to zero, the overall change is near-negligible.

Suppose net CO2 went up on average by 1ppm per thousand years by natural causes. Well, over the last 2 billion years 2,000,000,000 / 1,000 * 1= 1,000,000 ppm. 2,000,000 ppm wait part per million so 2 parts per part that's meaningless.

Thus, net CO2 from natural causes must average very close to 0 on long time scales.

PS: If you look into it natural carbon sequestration increases slightly as atmospheric CO2 increase which is why things end up in balance. Natural carbon sequestration is also why there are huge sources of coal and oil to begin with.

Re: July was the hottest month ever recorded, according to Nasa

#235

Post by DropbearRob »

chukye wrote: post #96

OK, but... any ideas how can we solve that?

yes,

Decreasing the CO2 emissions - which wont happen due to losses in profits.

Reduce deforestation - which wont happen due to losses in profits.

Increase the planting of grasses, and fast growing carbon sequestering crops such as hemp - Wont happen because it costs money, unless its triggered by individuals (Green plants absorb infrared and sequesters CO2). For those people who say, OH! but the CO2 cycle is neutral for growing plants because they rot... B.S. what do you think permafrost is and not to mention... oil.

Seed the oceans with iron to encourage algal blooms, and dredge it all up and bury it deep.

Change the mode of Air Transport to reduce contrails as studies have suggested that ‘contrail cirrus’ is a contributing factor and leads to greater forcings. We need widespread Maglev trains, or dare I say it something revolutionary such as Hyperloop (but one that actually gets made.. lets focus on what we have already)

Re: July was the hottest month ever recorded, according to Nasa

#236

Post by white-flame »

pjc50 wrote: post #224
VLM wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that extremely small area compared to submerged coastline and harbors and coastal cities? Some industrial processes and some datacenter services require baseload power. "most" power demand doesn't truly require baseload. Conveniently they require approx no people. Go build the plants and the data centers and the aluminum refineries in the desert next to the a-bomb test sites and no one will notice or care. As a…

The US might have plenty of desert, but you need rather a lot of cool water to run a nuclear plant, which is why they're often built on coasts. And what of other places? France has a decent set of nuclear reactors, but there aren't really uninhabited areas in Europe to put more in. Only relatively less populated areas. The UK is currently struggling to get one off the ground and the economics of it look terrible.

The Palo Verde nuclear generating station is the largest nuclear reactor in the US, and possibly in the western hemisphere. It is located in the US desert, an hour out of town pretty much in the middle of nowhere & nothing.

Re: July was the hottest month ever recorded, according to Nasa

#237

Post by s_q_b »

knz wrote: post #220
_ph_ wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wind and Solar are now cost-competetive with nuclear, without its nasty side effects. And the cost of storage for nuclear waste has not really been calculated yet.

Isn't another benefit of wind and solar the fact that it's distributed rather than concentrated into a few locations? Between the increase in frequency and severity of storms associated with climate change and the threat of terrorism/accidents, I would think the distributed nature of renewables would be a consideration even if nuclear remains a key part of the national grid.

That's a fair point. However, nuclear plants can be modularized and produced industrially. These are called SMRs, and in fact they are actually the recommendation issued in the joint letter to the President on climate change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor

Re: July was the hottest month ever recorded, according to Nasa

#238

Post by vtlynch »

nilved wrote: post #183
dash2 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Regulation has never fixed anything. That's just silly. Regulation guarantees the safety of the food you eat, the buildings you live in and the car you drive.

Plenty of people are dying from unsafe food, unsafe buildings and unsafe driving. Nobody can fix these problems because lobbyists are increasing the barrier to entry under the guise of safety. After all, check out this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12340694

>And yet, nobody can fix these problems because lobbyists are increasing the barrier to entry under the guise of safety.

that's a shame. how could we fix this? perhaps... regulation against lobbyists?

Re: July was the hottest month ever recorded, according to Nasa

#239

Post by nilved »

Lagged2Death wrote: post #203
nilved wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes and no. You can change the carbon efficiency of people's consumption quite a bit with appropriate nudging and consumption taxes. You can also have global agreements paying countries not to exploit their "unburnable" fossil fuel resources. No, you really can't, or we wouldn't have year-after-year record breaking temperatures. Regulation has never fixed anything. And especially when it comes to science, we need t…

Regulation has never fixed anything. Young, inexperienced but passionate fish sometimes have been known to deny the existence of water. Later they're embarrassed.

I can take you to the water, but I can't make you drink it.

Re: July was the hottest month ever recorded, according to Nasa

#240

Post by fencepost »

caseysoftware wrote: post #216
Retric wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you reduce net CO2 production by 90% you still get record temperatures year after year, but the rate of increase is dramatically smaller.

You mean "If you reduce CO2 production by 90% by humans " The analysis that I'm waiting to see is "of the global CO2 production each year, how much of it is due to humans?" If we contribute 90% of CO2 production, then reducing it may change things. If we contribute 10% of CO2 production, then even reducing our portion to zero, the overall change is near-negligible.

Based on your statements, is there anyone whose data and interpretation of it you'd trust? I feel pretty confident that you've already ruled out anyone respected within the scientific community, particularly anyone studying climate change.

It's a lot like saying "prove it to me with numbers, because all the numbers you're giving me are bunk."

Edit: tense

Post reply on HN