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

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

#401

Post by arethuza » Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 4:22 PM UTC

gambiting wrote: post #341

arethuza wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"And below 20 C we put on the heat." I'm pretty sure we don't put our heating on here in Edinburgh until October when nights are probably getting to be well below 10C. Mind you for me 10C is "comfortable", 15C is "warm", 20C is "hot" and 30C means I'm on holiday somewhere hot where I can go capsizing to stay cool.

I'm in Newcastle and I'll probably have heating on next month - basically the lowest I let my home temperature drop to naturally is ~17C, then I put the heating on, set to 19C.

Isn't that because Geordies are famous for never wearing warm clothes? :-)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/7892733.stm

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

#402

Post by spdustin » Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 4:25 PM UTC

ldonley wrote: post #389

spdustin wrote: post #374

I've come to the (I feel) inevitable conclusion that we are already well and truly fucked. I will still do what I can to slow the inexorable slide into worldwide famine, war and anarchy, in the hopes that the majority of my children's lives will be made incrementally better, should they choose to remain on this planet (and, it is assumed, that they may actually have a choice, but there's no way I can know). We're on…

This is tangential to your point about remaining on this planet, but it is much easier to survive on our planet, polluted or not, than it is to setup shop on a different planet. I am fully in agreement with your view on how messed up things are on our planet due to human action. I just felt compelled to point out that any adjustments to be made on other planets can be done here. Can't breath on mars? Build a dome and…

I guess my line of thought on my kids leaving this world for another has an additional assumption: that they, and the others who would do so, would leave to escape not just the planet's climate, but the people who screwed it up for them to begin with.

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

#403

Post by arethuza » Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 4:25 PM UTC

bane wrote: post #283

arethuza wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"And below 20 C we put on the heat." I'm pretty sure we don't put our heating on here in Edinburgh until October when nights are probably getting to be well below 10C. Mind you for me 10C is "comfortable", 15C is "warm", 20C is "hot" and 30C means I'm on holiday somewhere hot where I can go capsizing to stay cool.

There's definitely an element of being locally acclimatized. I remember spending some time in the desert, finally got used to the hot temperature when December rolled around. I was freezing all the time and finally checked the thermostat, 19 C.

I had a situation like that when I first went to university. My parents house in the north of Scotland was rather old and rather ramshackle with no central heating - I can remember going to have a bath once and finding 2" of ice in the bath. However, I don't remember feeling cold as a kid.

However, I went to university and stayed in centrally heated halls of residence, which I didn't find warm. However, when I returned home for Xmas it felt like I had been shipped to Siberia - I was dying of cold! I remember being pinned to the bed by a pile of blankets as I desperately tried to stay warm at night.

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

#404

Post by AngrySkillzz » Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 4:27 PM UTC

zaroth wrote: post #373

mseebach wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, there's no evidence that the carbon tax would have to be so high to be effective - $7-20/ton[1], probably increasing over time. US emissions per person is the world highest at 16.5 tons -- that's several hundred dollars per year , not day. Second, the revenue from the carbon tax should be fed back to the people by lowering other taxes. It should be net-zero on the government budget. The point is to create a cl…

> US emissions per person is the world highest at 16.5 tons -- that's several hundred dollars per year, not day. That's 16.5 tons per man, woman, and child, right? So potentially over $1,000 for a family of 4. > Second, the revenue from the carbon tax should be fed back to the people by lowering other taxes. It should be net-zero on the government budget. The bottom 50% of earners currently pay about 3% of Federal ta…

Principle of charity, give the person a break. Obviously people are going to think about that before enacting a carbon tax. Funnel some of that money into offsetting transfers to low income households and you're all set. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

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

#405

Post by exclusiv » Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 4:35 PM UTC

dash2 wrote: post #177

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. That's just silly. Regulation guarantees the safety of the food you eat, the buildings you live in and the car you drive.

It also prevents people that are dying from getting drugs that they need.

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

#406

Post by doingmyting » Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 4:39 PM UTC

James001 wrote: post #387

spdustin wrote: post #374

I've come to the (I feel) inevitable conclusion that we are already well and truly fucked. I will still do what I can to slow the inexorable slide into worldwide famine, war and anarchy, in the hopes that the majority of my children's lives will be made incrementally better, should they choose to remain on this planet (and, it is assumed, that they may actually have a choice, but there's no way I can know). We're on…

Thank god for negative feedback loops eh? I'm actually glad we have more CO2 in the atmosphere, because it will increase biodiversity and agricultural yields. I don't see any evidence that climate change is proceeding at a fast enough pace to cause damage.

If huge portions of the glaciers disappearing every year isn't convincing enough I pray neither you or your desendants are allowed to inhabit any other planet we decide to go to.

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

#407

Post by mod » Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 4:39 PM UTC

yongjik wrote: post #327

sounds wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great suggestions! We've basically imposed the "taxes on imports from said country, or ban those imports" on North Korea, with the result that they use the worst of environmental practices: • Inefficient small coal-burning fireplaces in outlying areas. (Pyongyang is better.) • Regulatory environment where factory and vehicle emissions are not even close to a priority. • Unsafe nuclear testing. Ok, so that was my stra…

1. According to Wikipedia, North Korea emits 3.0t CO2 per capita as of 2011. US emits 17.0t per capita. One could almost make the claim that economic sanction is working. :/ 2. The problem is to change the behavior of billions of people, and many will find it inconvenient (to varying degrees). Of course it's gonna be political. These days I end up regarding anyone proposing "de-politicization" with suspicion, because…

A more likely claim would be that living primitively causes fewer emissions.

Emissions are a byproduct of our progress (thus far).

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

#408

Post by RodericDay » Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 4:40 PM UTC

PrettyButUgly wrote: post #394

bad_user wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that costs are subsidized by basically letting businesses destroy the environment. The solution should be simple: add lots of taxes, let the off-the-shelf cost of meat and gasoline reflect the real cost to our environment, make deforestation a crime, tax the shit out of all polluting industries and if a country is not participating add taxes on imports from said country, or ban those imports altogether…

"add lots of taxes" - How incredibly naive. Any tax money would be wasted. Some people would pay more, some corrupt people will find a way to spend that tax money, and almost nothing else would change. Well maybe, you'll make it so poor people can't drive or cool their houses in the summer, but the middle class and up won't change their behavior. I wish you "just tax it" people would hold your electives accountable f…

As far as this scenario is concerned, it doesn't matter that the tax money is wasted. The point is to discourage consumption.

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

#409

Post by deegles » Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 4:40 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.

I think you hinted at the solution. "as long as people are rich enough to.." Well, put in place taxes high enough that people are rich enough to afford it! and use the money for sequestration tech or alternative energy.

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

#410

Post by bolidecaster » Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 4:42 PM UTC

vivekd wrote: post #390

paulajohnson wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 1900 it was literally impossible to buy flour that did not contain significant amounts of chalk dust and other adulterants. In Hong Kong there are entire streets given over to baby formula shops because the Chinese from the mainland don't trust the stuff in their shops, with very good reason. Don't assume that just because things are not perfect that regulation hasn't made a huge positive difference.

>. In Hong Kong there are entire streets given over to baby formula shops because the Chinese from the mainland don't trust the stuff in their shops, with very good reason. But aren't Chinese shops much more heavily regulated than the ones in Hong Kong. I've always understood China as a very heavily regulated bureaucracy and Hong Kong as a bit more free market?

It's heavily regulated on paper, not in reality.