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

September was the most anomalously hot month ever

scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 439 posts

Re: September was the most anomalously hot month ever

#391

Post by flagrant_taco »

Aunche wrote: post #230
flagrant_taco wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The debate over exact causes has always felt misguided to me. The planet is extremely complex, human impact on the planet is largely based on estimates and modeling, and at the end of the day an understanding of why it's getting hotter isn't itself a course correction. There are such obvious first steps we could take without a complete understanding of cause if we really cared. We could easily cut our use of fossil f…

> We could easily cut our use of fossil fuels if we weren't trying to balance that with an arbitrary GDP growth target Believe it or not, only a handful of people genuinely care about "GDP growth targets" and they have very little influence on environmental policy. The reason why politicians oppose sweeping regulation to stop climate change is because they'd lose their jobs if they intentionally caused gas prices to…

Or entire system is based on predictable GDP growth. It impacts nearly every part of your life in some way.

Do you have any debt? Or use money? Or pay taxes?do you have a job? Did you know that oil consumption grows at the same rate as GDP? Do you save for retirement, or hold any investments? Do you have a bank account?

It's all directly connected to the economic system, which is driven by the goal of having steady and predictable rate of growth in GDP.

Re: September was the most anomalously hot month ever

#392

Post by flagrant_taco »

avgcorrection wrote: post #298
flagrant_taco wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The economic model is going to change one way or another. A model designed around perpetual growth will always fail, and there are already plenty of cracks showing. A major economic change sounds impossible, but we've done it in the US at least three times in the last century.

> A major economic change sounds impossible, but we've done it in the US at least three times in the last century. No.

Creating the Federal Reserve was a fundamental change. Confiscating gold then pegging the US dollar to a gold-backed value was a fundamental change. Getting rid of the gold standard and going full fiat sad a fundamental change.

The economic model, monetary policy, and incentives of each system were completely different. We may not have renamed the currency or the country, but that doesn't change the fact that those were major economic shifts.

Re: September was the most anomalously hot month ever

#393

Post by flagrant_taco »

aydyn wrote: post #200
flagrant_taco wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you're describing is the path to inevitable collapse. If people will never be able to give up convenience or growth then we really are doomed, tech advantages only slow down that runaway train. I don't actually think it's a fundamental blocker though. People sacraficed quite a bit at home during WWII to support the war effort, we could make similar sacrifices now if we saw our impact on the planet as a similarly…

I disagree. There is more untapped energy and resources in this world than we could ever hope for, We just need to develop the tech to access it. Climate change too could be solved with tech. Theres no other choice.

How do we know these exist of we don't know how to access our use them? Without access we can only estimate the reserves, and without a way to use it we can't calculate the potential energy creation or storage.

We really are screwed off our only hope is blind faith that tech can save us. Technology can help, but we can't abandon the option of decisions that can already be made today.

Re: September was the most anomalously hot month ever

#394

Post by flagrant_taco »

aydyn wrote: post #380
mrguyorama wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We just need to develop the tech to access it What energy What "tech"? Tech isn't magic. We can't just magically stop the greenhouse effect.

Solar, wind and nuclear (theoretically) are limitless. > We can't just magically stop the greenhouse effect. You're absolutely right, that's why tech is the only non-magical solution. Anyone thinking they can change the behavior of 8 billion people is engaging in magical thinking.

Solar and wind are absolutely limited, both by environmental conditions that change the energy potential and by our ability to store energy. Neither can handle surge use as well either, we can't make more wind or sunshine when everyone turns on their suit conditioner.

Nuclear is at least a viable shirt term solution. Combine that with reducing our total energy demand and we're at least buying ourselves more time to figure things out, that's a much better sort term path for sure.

Re: September was the most anomalously hot month ever

#395

Post by Server6 »

morkalork wrote: post #87
badcppdev wrote: post #32

https://www.defense.gov/News/Feature-Stories/story/Article/2... I think the Overton window needs to shift soon to include the idea that widespread government intervention will be required to avoid 800 million climate refugees

There will be widespread government intervention. The only question is what it's going to look like.

Unfortunately the longer wait the most likely the response is going to be war.

Re: September was the most anomalously hot month ever

#396

Post by flagrant_taco »

nradov wrote: post #215
flagrant_taco wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you're describing is the path to inevitable collapse. If people will never be able to give up convenience or growth then we really are doomed, tech advantages only slow down that runaway train. I don't actually think it's a fundamental blocker though. People sacraficed quite a bit at home during WWII to support the war effort, we could make similar sacrifices now if we saw our impact on the planet as a similarly…

WW2 only lasted 4-7 years depending on which country you were in. There was direct, visible progress along the way. As soon as the war was over, everything could go back to "normal" (at least for the winners). What you're asking for is a permanent reduction in standards of living. While that might be the right thing to do, it's going to be difficult to convince average people to vote for that. Many of them are barely…

Defining standards of living in this way is very short term focused. If we reduce energy demand now but avoid a power grid collapse a decade down the road, is that better or worse for standard of living? And if we really are meant to believe that climate change is irreversible if we don't change course before 2030, who gives a damn about stander of lining for the next few years?

Re: September was the most anomalously hot month ever

#397

Post by nradov »

flagrant_taco wrote: post #396
nradov wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WW2 only lasted 4-7 years depending on which country you were in. There was direct, visible progress along the way. As soon as the war was over, everything could go back to "normal" (at least for the winners). What you're asking for is a permanent reduction in standards of living. While that might be the right thing to do, it's going to be difficult to convince average people to vote for that. Many of them are barely…

Defining standards of living in this way is very short term focused. If we reduce energy demand now but avoid a power grid collapse a decade down the road, is that better or worse for standard of living? And if we really are meant to believe that climate change is irreversible if we don't change course before 2030, who gives a damn about stander of lining for the next few years?

Sure, that's the logical analysis. But many people do give a damn about their short-term standard of living and vote on that basis.

Re: September was the most anomalously hot month ever

#398

Post by aydyn »

flagrant_taco wrote: post #394
aydyn wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Solar, wind and nuclear (theoretically) are limitless. > We can't just magically stop the greenhouse effect. You're absolutely right, that's why tech is the only non-magical solution. Anyone thinking they can change the behavior of 8 billion people is engaging in magical thinking.

Solar and wind are absolutely limited, both by environmental conditions that change the energy potential and by our ability to store energy. Neither can handle surge use as well either, we can't make more wind or sunshine when everyone turns on their suit conditioner. Nuclear is at least a viable shirt term solution. Combine that with reducing our total energy demand and we're at least buying ourselves more time to f…

You're not saying anything I disagree with. Technology will, and has been very quickly improving those limitations.

Re: September was the most anomalously hot month ever

#399

Post by DanHulton »

cm2012 wrote: post #129
DanHulton wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are delusional. That could happen in a single event, let alone "ever" as your comment is implying.

In fact, I would go even further and predict that all cause mortality will be under baseline for countries most affected by climate change in the next 10 years vs 10 years prior, and life expectancy will go up. I absolutely believe that climate change is happening, I think tech and other improvements will outpace the damage it does. I'm very serious about betting on this.

You know, I'm semi interested in firming up this bet, only because I'll be fucking THRILLED to lose.

Make it a hundred, though, so I can defend it to my dependants better and you're on.

(I realize that even if I win, I lose, but whatever, I'm more interested in talking with someone who has significant hope, enough to put money on the line.)

Re: September was the most anomalously hot month ever

#400

Post by flagrant_taco »

candiodari wrote: post #354
flagrant_taco wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An easier first step before nuclear is reducing our power requirements. This one gets laughed out of the room both because we don't think purple will accept it and because there's a direct correlation between GDP growth and energy consumption, we don't care enough about energy use to give up GDP.

This will achieve the opposite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox If you make something less critical, cheaper, it will be used for more and more ridiculous things.

Jevon's Paradox is a thought experiment focused on increased efficiency not decreased demand. History is full of examples where a decrease on demand didn't lead to an increase in ridiculous uses for the technology.
Post reply on HN