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

Climate crisis, shown directly on power plant, in guerrilla projection

cdm.link

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 41 posts

Re: Climate crisis, shown directly on power plant, in guerrilla projection

#31

Post by orthecreedence »

chrisco255 wrote: post #12
jjellyy wrote: post #10

Climate change is a hoax to increase taxes. I always hear that we’re so screwed for a million reasons and if we dont act now we go into a “runaway” scenario we cannot recover from. If this is true why have we not already hit this runaway scenario. If we’re already in that state we’d be better of leaning into it and saving resources to deal with the changes. Also the earth has natural feedback mechanisms to deal with…

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -HL Mencken I agree with your sentiment. I often ask people what percentage of the warming is due to CO2 emissions and what percent is due to natural fluctuations. And I struggle to receive an answer. There is nothing about the 20th…

> I often ask people what percentage of the warming is due to CO2 emissions and what percent is due to natural fluctuations.

Maybe you should try reading something other than your CLIMATE CHANGE IS A LIBERAL HOAX facebook group news articles. You'll find that the fluctuations we're seeing now are not in any way natural...they are "unpresidented" as you might put it.

Re: Climate crisis, shown directly on power plant, in guerrilla projection

#32

Post by zajio1am »

aplummer wrote: post #27
zajio1am wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering that organization behind this (Greenpeace) is also protesting against nuclear energy, the most realistic alternative to fossil energy, i will not take my hat off.

That’s not the most realistic alternative to fossil energy. The most realistic option would be the cheapest, renewables and storage.

Storage for renewables is realistic for hour-to-hour and max day-to-day fluctuations. But in central europe (like where the power plant from the article is located) solar power production during winter is about 15 % of summer values. You cannot reasonably store electricity for whole season.

Re: Climate crisis, shown directly on power plant, in guerrilla projection

#33

Post by orthecreedence »

jjellyy wrote: post #8
techrich wrote: post #3

kinda pathetic the levels they will stoop to, to make the point.

Its a huge tax and central planning scam, with people like this as foot soldiers for the elite.

> foot soldiers for the elite.

Well, if this isn't the pot calling the kettle black...

Re: Climate crisis, shown directly on power plant, in guerrilla projection

#34

Post by eloff »

zajio1am wrote: post #21
eloff wrote: post #2

Brilliant. I'm not a big art fan, but this really grabs me. I take my hat off to the people behind this.

Considering that organization behind this (Greenpeace) is also protesting against nuclear energy, the most realistic alternative to fossil energy, i will not take my hat off.

I can appreciate the art by itself without having to agree with everything Greenpeace does (I don't much care for then for the record.) Don't politicize everything, people you don't agree with can accomplish great things too.

Re: Climate crisis, shown directly on power plant, in guerrilla projection

#35

Post by eesmith »

chrisco255 wrote: post #24
elihu wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the CO2 emissions are natural, but they aren't the main concern. In the Northern hemisphere growing season, atmospheric CO2 declines sharply. In the fall and winter, the leaves fall off of trees and decompose, and that CO2 goes right back into the atmosphere. We don't worry about that CO2 because it's part of a natural cycle that absorbs and emits roughly equal amounts of carbon dioxide. If you look at an atm…

I love xkcd but it's not a very good source for scientific argument. It's a pop science cartoon. The cartoon isn't accurate and misses a lot of major temperature swings. See this chart on second page "Long Term Trends in Climate Variability of Caucasus Region 1Bakhram S. Nurtaev, 2Lali Nurtaev" http://openjournals.gela.org.ge/index.php/GGS/article/viewFi...

How neat to have a reference to the Journal of the Georgian Geophysical Society. I so rarely get to see Georgian script, like in the subsequent paper by ბ. ნურტაევი and ლ. ნურტაევი (last page on the document).

What makes it odd, however, is that the chart you mentioned is an uncited reprint of a chart made by noted global warming denialist David Archibald. See https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/12/david-archibald-on-cl... . You'll note that this paper by Nurtaev and Nurtaev uses a low quality image paste, so almost certainly did not generate it themselves.

Also odd is the source citations, from Dansgaard (1969) and Schönwiese (1995). You'll note that those are 1) not stated in the references, and 2) they are very old, at 50 and nearly 25 years, respectively.

Compare that to the citations in the xkcd comic, which are to 2012 and 2013.

This is important because we've improved our understanding of the temperature records. The xkcd comic notes "Medieval warm period in Europe and some northern regions (too regional to affect the global average much)" and Wikipedia's entry for the Medieval Warm Period comments "Other regions were colder, such as the tropical Pacific. Averaged global mean temperatures have been calculated to be similar to early-mid 20th century warming"

While the chart in Nurtaev and Nurtaev says there is a distinct global warming during that period.

How odd that they use information which is so out of date.

How odd that the paper promotes a solar model which has long been demonstrated to be wrong - and mostly only lives among the fringe group of global warming denialists.

How odd that you decided to post a link to this paper, instead of the source material, and argued that it was more accurate when it appears to be less.

Could you describe how you came across this paper, and what about it lead you to conclude it was a more accurate source of information?

Re: Climate crisis, shown directly on power plant, in guerrilla projection

#36

Post by arnoooooo »

bamboozled wrote: post #28
aplummer wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not the most realistic alternative to fossil energy. The most realistic option would be the cheapest, renewables and storage.

Could we say both are realistic alternatives? We've ran out of time and really need to move away from coal, like yesterday, who cares which method we use, let's just stop burning fossil fuels.

I care. Safe nuclear power plants require high quality maintenance and stringent regulations. I'm not too optimistic about social stability (the part of climate change we won't be able to avoid will not help), so I don't want nuclear power plants all around.

Re: Climate crisis, shown directly on power plant, in guerrilla projection

#37

Post by akvadrako »

zajio1am wrote: post #32
aplummer wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not the most realistic alternative to fossil energy. The most realistic option would be the cheapest, renewables and storage.

Storage for renewables is realistic for hour-to-hour and max day-to-day fluctuations. But in central europe (like where the power plant from the article is located) solar power production during winter is about 15 % of summer values. You cannot reasonably store electricity for whole season.

Storage isn't yet realistic for whole-day fluctuations. Current capital costs are about $200/kWh. Daily global energy use is about 400 TWh. That would be an 80000 trillion dollar battery.

That number is so outrageous it's basically infinite. Even if the whole world focused on building a battery to supply a single country for a single day we'd run out of materials and land (batteries aren't small).

The only hope for energy storage is 100000x cost reductions.

Re: Climate crisis, shown directly on power plant, in guerrilla projection

#38

Post by chrisco255 »

eesmith wrote: post #35
chrisco255 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love xkcd but it's not a very good source for scientific argument. It's a pop science cartoon. The cartoon isn't accurate and misses a lot of major temperature swings. See this chart on second page "Long Term Trends in Climate Variability of Caucasus Region 1Bakhram S. Nurtaev, 2Lali Nurtaev" http://openjournals.gela.org.ge/index.php/GGS/article/viewFi...

How neat to have a reference to the Journal of the Georgian Geophysical Society. I so rarely get to see Georgian script, like in the subsequent paper by ბ. ნურტაევი and ლ. ნურტაევი (last page on the document). What makes it odd, however, is that the chart you mentioned is an uncited reprint of a chart made by noted global warming denialist David Archibald. See https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/12/david-archibald-on…

Are you suggesting that studies or papers which have been published more recently are automatically more correct? I think that's an incredulous statement and suggests a recency bias in your line of thinking.

Dansgaard was the guy who discovered that isotopes in ice cores could be used to measure past climates.

In particular, when we are discussing climatic events from 300, 1000, and many millennia ago, these events have ice core records that have not changed. And unless you have evidence of Dansgaard's faulty measurements of said isotopes, you've got to accept this as scientific fact:

The climate has warmed as much as 8 degrees Celsius in less than 40 years in the prehistoric past.

See Dansgaard–Oeschger event: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dansgaard–Oeschger_event

See "Ice-core evidence of abrupt climate changes" (2000) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC34297/

Re: Climate crisis, shown directly on power plant, in guerrilla projection

#39

Post by eesmith »

chrisco255 wrote: post #38
eesmith wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How neat to have a reference to the Journal of the Georgian Geophysical Society. I so rarely get to see Georgian script, like in the subsequent paper by ბ. ნურტაევი and ლ. ნურტაევი (last page on the document). What makes it odd, however, is that the chart you mentioned is an uncited reprint of a chart made by noted global warming denialist David Archibald. See https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/12/david-archibald-on…

Are you suggesting that studies or papers which have been published more recently are automatically more correct? I think that's an incredulous statement and suggests a recency bias in your line of thinking. Dansgaard was the guy who discovered that isotopes in ice cores could be used to measure past climates. In particular, when we are discussing climatic events from 300, 1000, and many millennia ago, these events h…

I would like you to answer my questions concerning "how you came across this paper, and what about it lead you to conclude it was a more accurate source of information".

You haven't done that.

Obviously I am not suggesting what you think I did, as I've already answered your question by saying "we've improved our understanding of the temperature records" since 25 and 50 years ago, respectively.

I don't think you are denying that fact, just like I don't think you are suggesting that that older sources of information are automatically more correct than more recent ones.

I'm asking why you believe the publication you pointed to is more accurate than the xkcd comic.

What's the point of bringing up the Dansgaard–Oeschger events? The most recent D-O event was about 11,500 years ago, while the chart in Nurtaev and Nurtaev only goes back to 11,000 years ago.

Plus, if you believe the smoothing in Nurtaev and Nurtaev is valid then you must surely believe the smoothing in the xkcd comic is valid.

If you don't like the smoothing in the xkcd comic, the relevant source - cited as Marcott et al. (2013) - is "A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years", in Science, available from http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~mli/Economics%207004/Marcott_G... . You'll note it cites Oeschger, and describes the 73 globally distributed records used, and several different methods used to estimate the global temperature anomaly, along with associated errors.

How did Nurtaev and Nurtaev come up with their graph, that being a paper which you suggest is a good source for scientific argument? Which temperature records were used? How was the curve fitting done? What are the estimated errors?

Quite clearly at least one of them is wrong as Nurtaev and Nurtaev give a 0.5C global temperature rise above baseline during the "Medieval warm period", while Marcott et al. show it at about baseline, with a 0.5C temperature rise being above the uncertainty band.

How did you decide that the Marcott et al. paper (and hence xkcd) is less likely to be correct than Nurtaev and Nurtaev?

Re: Climate crisis, shown directly on power plant, in guerrilla projection

#40

Post by chrisco255 »

eesmith wrote: post #39
chrisco255 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting that studies or papers which have been published more recently are automatically more correct? I think that's an incredulous statement and suggests a recency bias in your line of thinking. Dansgaard was the guy who discovered that isotopes in ice cores could be used to measure past climates. In particular, when we are discussing climatic events from 300, 1000, and many millennia ago, these events h…

I would like you to answer my questions concerning "how you came across this paper, and what about it lead you to conclude it was a more accurate source of information". You haven't done that. Obviously I am not suggesting what you think I did, as I've already answered your question by saying "we've improved our understanding of the temperature records" since 25 and 50 years ago, respectively. I don't think you are d…

I don't need to answer how I came across some source. That's irrelevant. If you have conflicting sources of information, I'll gladly purview them, but don't be condescending or patronizing. It's super counter-productive.

We still don't understand what caused D-O events, but we know one thing for sure: CO2 was an independent variable in those events. Warming occurred in times when CO2 concentrations were decreasing. We know that during these events, global temperatures bounced as much as 8 degrees Celsius in as little as a few dozen years, indicating that rapid climate change is naturally possible. We can speculate that whatever natural forcing caused those changes to occur could potentially occur at any time.

I'm going to show you several sources (that are not Nurtaev) that indicate swings of 4+ degrees Celsius in the past 10,000 years and that bears some level of investigation. I don't know why there's differences between these sources and the one you are quoting.

Peta J. Mudie, Andre Rochon & Elisabeth Levac (2005) Decadal-scale sea ice changes in the Canadian Arctic and their impacts on humans during the past 4,000 years, Environmental Archaeology, 10:2, 113-126, DOI: 10.1179/env.2005.10.2.113 https://doi.org/10.1179/env.2005.10.2.113

The actual temp variations from the ice core on above paper: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Core-006-from-Coburg-Pol...

Loehle, C. (2007). A 2000-Year Global Temperature Reconstruction Based on Non-Treering Proxies. Energy & Environment, 18(7), 1049–1058. https://doi.org/10.1260/095830507782616797 (shows past 2000 years including Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age with much greater perturbations than indicated by Marcott et al.)

Actual PDF for above article: https://www.asc.ohio-state.edu/mcculloch.2/AGW/Loehle/Loehle...

Quansheng GeHaolong LiuXiang MaJingyun ZhengZhixin Hao (2017). Characteristics of temperature change in China over the last 2000 years and spatial patterns of dryness/wetness during cold and warm periods. Advances in Atmospheric Sciences. August 2017, Volume 34, Issue 8, pp 941–951. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00376-017-6238-...

^^ shows Medieval Warm Period just as warm today "as data show records for the periods AD 981–1100 and AD 1201–70 are comparable to the present"

Holocene volcanic history as recorded in the sulfate stratigraphy of theEuropean Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica Dome C (EDC96)ice core. Holocene volcanic history as recorded in the sulfate stratigraphy of theEuropean Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica Dome C (EDC96)ice coreE. Castellano,1S. Becagli,1M. Hansson,2M. Hutterli,3J. R. Petit,4M. R. Rampino,5M. Severi,1J. P. Steffensen,6R. Traversi,1and R. Udisti. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/200...

^^ evidence of Medieval Warm Period in Antarctica (offset by about 150 years from Northern hemisphere's warming period)

Yi, S., Saito, Y., Chen, Z. et al. Geosci J (2006) 10: 17. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02910329 Palynological study on vegetation and climatic change in the subaqueous Changjiang (Yangtze River) delta, China, during the past about 1600 years.

^^ Research indicating 1-2 degrees Celsius warmer in China during Medieval Warming Period.

So the research above depends on both ice cores and tree rings, analyzed completely independently of each other in completely different regions around the world. They all indicate a strong Medieval Warm Period just as warm as today and a strong Little Ice Age, probably 1-2 degrees colder than today, in just the past 1000 years.

Post reply on HN