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

IPCC climate crisis report delivers ‘final warning on 1.5C’

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 456 posts

Re: IPCC climate crisis report delivers ‘final warning on 1.5C’

#411

Post by revelio »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #275
brnt wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Im sure the IPCC authors didn't forget their climate science 101 material. Moreover, we can tackle multiple problems concurrently, no need to make it appear we can only ever do one thing. And as it so happens, climate change tends to correlate extremely well with war and famine. It certainly appears a climate solution is going to help many other big problems along as well.

> climate change tends to correlate extremely well with war and famine and migration.

No it doesn't, that's just people trying to tie together two hobby-horses. Nobody is migrating to Europe or America because of climate change, they're migrating because of wealth and war.

Re: IPCC climate crisis report delivers ‘final warning on 1.5C’

#412

Post by dragonwriter »

revelio wrote: post #410
rkuykendall-com wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems inevitable that [conservatives] will be complacent until it's too late. Let's not white-wash the problem.

Flipping that around, it seems inevitable that [leftists] will insist on mass collective action based on the predictions of unreliable academics, until the moment they realize those predictions were wrong. Again. Example: the idea that global warming doesn't cause warming is new. 20 years ago climatologists were telling British people with absolute confidence that by now there'd be no more snow. In the 1960s they wer…

> Example: the idea that global warming doesn't cause warming is new. 20 years ago climatologists were telling British people with absolute confidence that by now there'd be no more snow.

The idea that global warming causes local climate shifts, increases extremes, and breaks existing patterns in ways that will sometimes not cause local warming and may even cause local cooling has been a major theme of GW discussions at least as old as the 1980s.

The particular local predictions for Britain may be new, but that its hard to make specific local predictions of the effects is also not a new realization, so I doubt very much that climatologists (as opposed to, say, popular media) were predicting anything of the kind you describe with “absolute confidence”.

Re: IPCC climate crisis report delivers ‘final warning on 1.5C’

#413

Post by revelio »

barbazoo wrote: post #157
makerofspoons wrote: post #145

The comparisons between the AR5 and AR6 are alarming. Now, under no emission scenarios other than low and very low which we are not tracking close to, we reach +2C at or just before 2050. Many reading this thread will see 3 degrees by the time they plan to retire. This comes with drought, undernourishment, and mass migration: https://sciencenorway.no/climate-climate-change/deadly-heat-...

> Many reading this thread will see 3 degrees by the time they plan to retire. This comes with drought, undernourishment, and mass migration I wonder what it'll feel like looking back at that point. There isn't anything that I alone can do right now to prevent this from happening, it has to be a collective action but still, we've been warned for decades, over and over, we knew what would happen. Will we regret not ha…

> I wonder what it'll feel like looking back at that point.

It will feel like nothing, because everyone will have conveniently forgotten about these sorts of reports and predictions when the world stubbornly refuses to end. Just like everyone conveniently forgot that in the 50s and 60s scientists were writing to the US President to tell him that the consensus of scientists was that the world was entering a new ice age, and that he should prepare agriculture and industry for the transition.

You wait and see.

Re: IPCC climate crisis report delivers ‘final warning on 1.5C’

#414

Post by myrmidon »

kgabis wrote: post #405
myrmidon wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Simply taxing CO2 emissions and maybe reinvesting some profits (into electrification and renewables) should do just fine. The problem is people have to pay for these changes. This means potentially: - General increase in prices/decrease in disposable income - Danger for competitiveness of domestic industries - Uncertain second-order effects/additional risk Just consider electric vehicles-- pushing for no new combusti…

Your assessment of nuclear power is completely wrong. Nuclear is the cheapest, most sustainable and widely supported source of clean electricity. Even in Germany more people support nuclear power than oppose it.

What is the source for your beliefs?

I'm assuming you are talking about nuclear fission because fusion is pretty much a pipe dream right now.

A 2020 report (https://www.lazard.com/media/451419/lazards-levelized-cost-o...) by Lazard (investment bank) points out significantly higher levelized cost of energy for nuclear energy compared to renewables.

In additions, most recently built reactors finished neither on time NOR on budget, and most of those were just expansions/additional blocks for existing plants, which is a big "free" decrease in risk/problems already compared to new plants (compare that with renewable costs which are trending down).

Nuclear is also absolutely not sustainable: Mining fuel is a dirty business and reserves are limited.

Nuclear proliferation is another undesirable side effect, and both nuclear waste and decomissioned plants are difficult and expensive to clean up.

Regarding popular support: What is your source for this? Maybe it is talking about delaying decomissioning of existing plants to keep electricity prices lower? I am extremely doubtful that this "support" could be leveraged into securing new places to build plants anyway.

Also consider that specifically the German electricity mix is basically 50% renewables already-- scaling that up seems more doable, faster, cheaper, and ultimately environment friendly than starting to build nuclear plants on a massive scale NOW.

Re: IPCC climate crisis report delivers ‘final warning on 1.5C’

#415

Post by revelio »

geysersam wrote: post #138
scottLobster wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue we have no idea what will happen when the glaciers melt, given the lack of accurate climate change predictions to date. We have a lot of models that have historically proven very incomplete with no reason to believe they're any more complete now. The oceans rising is more a problem, but it's not going to end human civilization and will happen slowly enough that adaptation is possible, albeit expensive. "Dro…

> Drowning is hyperbole English is not my first language. How would you describe something previously on land becoming submerged by the ocean?

>> How would you describe something previously on land becoming submerged by the ocean?

A tide. Sea level rises are small and highly predictable over time. All claims of dramatic sudden flooding or drowning are based on assumed correctness of models that, as scottLobster points out, have always been wrong (they always overshoot).

Re: IPCC climate crisis report delivers ‘final warning on 1.5C’

#416

Post by myrmidon »

sazz wrote: post #395
myrmidon wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China is currently at around European level in CO2/capita (~8tons CO2/capita/year). US is SIGNIFICANTLY worse by about a factor of two (~15tons CO2/capita/year). "The west" has currently pretty much ZERO moral standing when pushing for more drastic anti-CO2 policies in China and especially developing nations like India or Africa. This is not taking "exported" emissions into account and considering cumulative emission…

You cannot solve a puzzle by picking out one piece. You solve a puzzle by looking at all the pieces and not stylising yourself as the moral hero and assuming that everyone else will follow. That is short-sighted thinking. A per capita figure may play a role in politics in negotiations, but it is not relevant for solving the problem. It is like accusing a Norwegian living in a fjord of wasting water. For example, it i…

The CO2 footprint of an Icelander is EXACTLY as relevant as the footprint of a Chinese citizen. Just because Iceland, as a whole, has less effect than China as a whole does not absolve it from contributing THEIR part in any form.

Just reconsider your argument: If China is split into 20 independent nation states, then suddenly NONE of those would be "relevant to solving the problem"?

> You solve a puzzle by looking at all the pieces and not stylising yourself as the moral hero and assuming that everyone else will follow.

You, as a nation, can ABSOLUTELY not expect to first not even come close to doing your part and then let others pick up the slack for you, just because "there are ten others and only one of me, whatever I do won't make or break things anyway".

> The economy has suffered brutally because of all the changes, but you are now the world leader in CO2 per capita consumption. What do you think happens then?

This is a complete strawman. You are not going to beat developing nations in CO2/capita. India/Africa is below 2 tons per year right now, there is simply NO WAY that the US or even EU could even come close to competing with that in YEARS. What you can and have to do is approach the lower emissions of developing nations, demonstrating that a wealthy modern society is feasible without excessive CO2 emissions-- then you help developing nations in not exceeding your level.

It is very obvious to me that it's MUCH easier to cut 1 of 15 tons of CO2/year for a wealthy American (=> "buy a hybrid car for wife/kids instead of another SUV"), than it is to save 200kg each for five Indian rice farmers (=> "no heating in winter?").

Re: IPCC climate crisis report delivers ‘final warning on 1.5C’

#417

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

logicalmonster wrote: post #407
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if bear attacks really did contribute to a statistically significant increase in excess deaths, that would indicate that you're doing something wrong. Misattributing it to bears when it was really lead in gasoline or plastics in the air or whatever really caused it just delays your ability to help fix it, but that's a different question.

> Misattributing it to bears when it was really lead in gasoline or plastics in the air or whatever really caused it just delays your ability to help fix it, I was thinking of WWII in my 1940s example, which I thought might have been obvious, but that's besides the point. (Bear attacks are a silly example to illustrate the principle involved) If you're misattributing excess societal deaths to a wrong cause such as be…

I agree with all of this.

However, I would still maintain that it is useful (necessary?) to differentiate between measurement and diagnosis.

Excess deaths will remain an excellent (proxy) measurement for the extent to which we are satisfying (at least) the 3 goals you mentioned.

Excess deaths (by themselves) are not useful for diagnosing the causes of their off-normal value.

Re: IPCC climate crisis report delivers ‘final warning on 1.5C’

#418

Post by hnburnsy »

tablespoon wrote: post #110
mrpopo wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Page 16 https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/ > Have they modeled all the different plausible crops and agricultural techniques, which regional environmental conditions they're most suited for, and the transitions between them based on regional climate change effects? Seems so. > It's one thing to model a natural system, but seems quite a bit more complicated to model a system where human technology and decision-making…

> Page 16 > https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/ >> Have they modeled all the different plausible crops and agricultural techniques, which regional environmental conditions they're most suited for, and the transitions between them based on regional climate change effects? > Seems so. I'm not seeing it. I'm assuming you mean page 16 of the "Summary for Policymakers," but all that has is a unreadable map of "Maize Yield…

Thank you for raising these points.

Re: IPCC climate crisis report delivers ‘final warning on 1.5C’

#419

Post by kgabis »

myrmidon wrote: post #414
kgabis wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your assessment of nuclear power is completely wrong. Nuclear is the cheapest, most sustainable and widely supported source of clean electricity. Even in Germany more people support nuclear power than oppose it.

What is the source for your beliefs? I'm assuming you are talking about nuclear fission because fusion is pretty much a pipe dream right now. A 2020 report ( https://www.lazard.com/media/451419/lazards-levelized-cost-o... ) by Lazard (investment bank) points out significantly higher levelized cost of energy for nuclear energy compared to renewables. In additions, most recently built reactors finished neither on time…

Lazard doesn't account for energy storage and grid expansion so it shouldn't be used to compare intermittent and baseload energy sources. If there's political will NPPs can be and are constructed on time, like in ROK, PRC or 70's France. Your argument about sustainability even more so applies to renewables considering how much more resources have to be mined to build such low density and intermittent energy source. Also, renewables occupy a lot of space that can and should be rewilded. Using nuclear reactors to produce nuclear weapons is not easy (see Iran) and nuclear waste can be stored underground. Decomissioning of NPPs can be done after 80 or 100 years of operation which is a crazy long time given how short the lifespans of wind turbines and solar panels are. Germany electricity mix is 50% renewables yet right now it's emitting 8x more CO2 per kWh than France. I wonder why that's the case? Maybe energy policy should be more about decarbonisation rather than building renewable capacity?

Re: IPCC climate crisis report delivers ‘final warning on 1.5C’

#420

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

noiv wrote: post #401
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is an El Nino actually a warmer Pacific ocean, heating the global average? I assumed it was changes in currents that were already there and the heat was already in the water somewhere.

That's right, we're talking surface temperature.

Gotcha. I always missed that bit - I had to dig a fair ways into the documentation before I found "surface" temperature mentioned. Thanks for your patience.
Post reply on HN