July was the hottest month ever recorded, according to Nasa • Hacker News Board

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

#361

Post by thesimpsons1022 » Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 3:49 PM UTC

harryh wrote: post #44

Personally I think that the idea that these trends can ever be revered by some sort of world wide agreement to lower consumption is a pipe dream. People want to eat meat and drive cars and fly on airplanes. As long as they're rich enough to do so you'll never stop them. The only solution to this problem is technology. Some combination of green energy sources plus probably very large scale terraforming.

pretty sure we can stop them but not by asking nicely. just takes armed officers and the threat of force from the state.

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

#362

Post by mikeash » Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 3:49 PM UTC

staticelf wrote: post #37

I am lucky I live in the northen parts of Europe. I do not wish to live in America in ~50-100 years from now since there is so much guns and other weapons easily available. People who care about their childrens future should start planning now. I think when the shit hits the fan it will hit hard and fast.

If the shit hits the fan, I'd rather be in the country with a lot of weapons. Historically, American weapons usually get used on other countries, not on ourselves.

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

#363

Post by maxerickson » Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 3:51 PM UTC

bcarrell wrote: post #358

I own a home built in the 1960s in the northeast US. My home (like many others, I'm sure) uses an oil-fired boiler to provide heating and hot water. I don't have gas lines to my house. The gas company won't run them unless I pay ~$5,000 for them to do so. Even if my home used natural gas instead of oil, I feel like it's not really solving the problem. What are my options here? Is solar viable? What can _I_ reasonably…

Propane can be moderately cleaner than oil. Depending on the age of your boiler, you might get a big boost in efficiency by replacing it.

The difference can be quite substantial:

http://energy.gov/energysaver/furnaces-and-boilers

As much as 25% more energy directed into the home instead of out the chimney.

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

#364

Post by mikeash » Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 3:51 PM UTC

Oletros wrote: post #344

mikeash wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can also come at it from the other direction: look at how much CO2 humans have released over the past century or so, look at how much more CO2 is in the atmosphere, and compare. I looked this up a while ago and as I recall the result was that about half of humanity's CO2 production was being absorbed somewhere, and about half of it is still around and accounts for the increase in atmospheric CO2. Which is to say,…

> Which is to say, the natural net contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere is negative What?

Looking at the last hundred years or so, natural CO2 production is less than natural CO2 absorption. The difference is substantially less than artificial CO2 production, so the net change is still positive.

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

#365

Post by zamalek » Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 3:51 PM UTC

__jal wrote: post #331

pjc50 wrote: post #107

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. Little things like the EU mandate for ending incandescent lightbulbs can definitely add up. You need technology and policy and economics. The market for power plants is never go…

The people who make me crazy are the ones who argue that everything will be fine, there's on need to change behavior because we'll fix it in post, I mean, geoengineer our way out of any problems. I always want to suggest to these people that they should start smoking, because clearly, the future's so bright there will be a cancer cure soon. And, not to be too crass, but that admittedly snarky reply is about one body.…

> still don't fully understand, and that is undergoing changes with implications we don't fully understand.

There is evidence to support what you are saying: every year there is new research that brings the inhospitable-deadline closer to today - there is a high degree of uncertainty. However, assuming that humans are at the very least responsible for the acceleration of climate change by pumping out GHGs, we could start by reversing that single change that we have made.

It's not as though we should just give up.

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

#366

Post by russell_sears » Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 3:51 PM UTC

harryh wrote: post #44

Personally I think that the idea that these trends can ever be revered by some sort of world wide agreement to lower consumption is a pipe dream. People want to eat meat and drive cars and fly on airplanes. As long as they're rich enough to do so you'll never stop them. The only solution to this problem is technology. Some combination of green energy sources plus probably very large scale terraforming.

We really need a global carbon credit system (with stiff tariffs for countries that do not participate). Cut net greenhouse emissions by a few percent a year until net emissions are negative and atmospheric CO2 and methane are back to pre-industrial levels. This will help renewables (and nuclear, for better or worse) in the short term. In the medium term, the invisible hand of the market will make carbon capture profitable, which means smart VCs will start dumping cash into it now.

I think this sounds more plausible than terraforming, but is really the same thing.

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

#367

Post by ThomPete » Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 3:51 PM UTC

dwc wrote: post #156

ThomPete wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What on earth does language have to do with it? Other countries write about climate change too :)

There's not always a 1:1 mapping of words between languages, so the nuance of "climate" vs. "weather" in English might get confusing.

Sure but I am assuming the parent have read about climate change in german before. Whether he undertands the difference is another question all together.

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

#368

Post by mikeash » Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 3:52 PM UTC

bluehazed wrote: post #332

mikeash wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Energy storage solves that problem. The technology exists, the only potential trouble is cost, so it comes back to price again. Storage costs are also dropping rapidly. A proper comparison of nuclear to wind/solar needs to account for the cost of storage as well, but even if you add that in I suspect it's approaching parity.

"Energy storage solves that problem" Yes, but we don't have that solution.

I'm puzzled as to why you quote part of my comment and then act like I didn't think of the point you're making, when I made the exact opposite point just one sentence later.

Batteries, pumped hydro, thermal storage, and many other technologies exist. They just need to become cheap enough. Thus, the problem is once again price.

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

#369

Post by ianlevesque » Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 3:54 PM UTC

bcarrell wrote: post #358

I own a home built in the 1960s in the northeast US. My home (like many others, I'm sure) uses an oil-fired boiler to provide heating and hot water. I don't have gas lines to my house. The gas company won't run them unless I pay ~$5,000 for them to do so. Even if my home used natural gas instead of oil, I feel like it's not really solving the problem. What are my options here? Is solar viable? What can _I_ reasonably…

Better insulation was missing from your list (or was maybe part of "etc") but if you want a more efficient heating / cooling system ground source heat pumps are an option. They can run from the grid more efficiently than most other sources of heating or cooling or optionally be combined with solar.

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

#370

Post by bcarrell » Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 3:54 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #363

bcarrell wrote: post #358

I own a home built in the 1960s in the northeast US. My home (like many others, I'm sure) uses an oil-fired boiler to provide heating and hot water. I don't have gas lines to my house. The gas company won't run them unless I pay ~$5,000 for them to do so. Even if my home used natural gas instead of oil, I feel like it's not really solving the problem. What are my options here? Is solar viable? What can _I_ reasonably…

Propane can be moderately cleaner than oil. Depending on the age of your boiler, you might get a big boost in efficiency by replacing it. The difference can be quite substantial: http://energy.gov/energysaver/furnaces-and-boilers As much as 25% more energy directed into the home instead of out the chimney.

My current boiler is ~85 AFUE.