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

421–430 of 456 posts

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

#421

Post by politician »

Retric wrote: post #241
politician wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Famine will. Rice fails to germinate at 35°C. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-06118-0_...

False, 35C is described as the highest optimal temperature not the maximum in your link. Yields do slowly decline with increased temperature. For specifics, “Germination occurs within the temperature range of 50° to 107°F with an optimum temperature of about 87°F.” https://www.uaex.uada.edu/publications/pdf/mp192/chapter-2.p... Further, it’s exactly the kind of reason to chose a new variety over an old one.

Before saying "False" and dropping the mic, you should pull the paper and look at Table 1. High temperature stresses start at 25°C. Above 35°C, photosynthesis drops by 15%, grain size suffers, etc.

"Yields slowly decline" is a mischaracterization of the situation.

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

#422

Post by missedthecue »

defrost wrote: post #387
missedthecue wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've read studies which conclude that climate change improves crop yields because carbon is an input to photosynthesis -- often the bottleneck. In addition, global warming frees up more arable land. After all, there is far more landmass in the northern hemisphere than at or around the equator. The net result is that some land become intolerable in certain areas and a lot of land becomes newly arable in other areas.

Many of those studies also conclude "more plant, less food", or: Temperature is not the only factor the models consider when simulating future crop yields. Higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have a positive effect on photosynthesis and water retention, increasing crop yields, though often at a cost to nutrition. and Increases in temperature and carbon dioxide (CO2) can increase some crop yields in some…

Water availability, soil nutrients, and moisture are variables farmers can control. Atmospheric carbon levels are not, so while that caveat is important to keep in mind from an agricultural science perspective, it will still result in higher yields of quality food.

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

#423

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

revelio wrote: post #411
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

If you live in an agricultural area and can't get sufficient water for irrigation anymore, the distinction between climate change, wealth and war is pretty immaterial.

Do you seriously think that if, in say 30 years, substantial chunks of the tropics-to-tropics range of latitude have become too hot/dry for mass agriculture, that people will not be trying to migrate?

I haven't seen anyone claiming that there is currently mass migration due to climate change. But I haven't seen anyone claiming that previous climate change events (anthropogenic or not) were not accompanied by mass migration (even if the absolute numbers of people were smaller due to total population)

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

#424

Post by fwlr »

antisthenes wrote: post #399
fwlr wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All I can take from this comment is there are several likelihood thresholds and an array of future Celsius values which can be combined to generate arbitrarily many “final warnings”. Sigh.

We're terribly sorry the reality is a bit more complex and doesn't conform to your mental model of an "if then" statement.

If you read my original comment more closely you’ll see I have no trouble with the complexity of the reality of climate change, and what I am taking issue with is the annoying method of communication of predictions about that reality, communication that resembles nothing so much as systematized crying wolf. I’m not even asking for it to stop, or threatening to spitefully disbelieve in climate change because of it, I’m just asking for it to be served with a spoonful of kindness.

I don’t have anything productive or polite to say about you misinterpreting my comment as climate denial and then mocking me for having a simplistic mental model.

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

#425

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

alfor wrote: post #397
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Does it? We have fewer and fewer death because of climate (most death of climate is because of cold) We have a proxy war in Ukraine that has nothing to do with climate We have a famine in Sri Lanka that was caused by the green movement The narrative of climate is the cause of all problems isn’t reasonable anymore.

Robust institutions disagree on whether heat or cold is more significant:

> Extreme heat and extreme cold both kill hundreds of people each year in the U.S., but determining a death toll for each is a process subject to large errors. In fact, two major U.S. government agencies that track heat and cold deaths--NOAA and the CDC--differ sharply in their answer to the question of which is the bigger killer.

https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/Which-Kills-More-People-Ex...

And while it may indeed be that cold is a more significant source of death, these numbers are hardly trivial:

2003 heatwave, Europe: 72,000 2022 heatwave, Europe: 20,000

and for the future:

> In the course of this century, the percentage of the European population dying from cold temperatures will steadily decrease, while the percentage of the population dying from heat will increase. The latter increase will start to exceed the reduction of cold-weather related mortality in the second half of this century, especially in the Mediterranean. As a result, mortality in Europe related to non-optimal temperatures will start to increase by the end of the century in a moderate scenario of climate change, and already by the middle of the century in the high-end scenario of climate change.

Derived from: Martínez-Solanas et al., 2021. Lancet Planetary Health 5: e446–54

There is no serious narrative that claims that climate change is the current cause of all problems. There is no serious narrative that can refute the obvious point that if climate chnage predictions play out, it will add greatly to all existing problems.

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

#426

Post by barbazoo »

mulmen wrote: post #287
saulpw wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US is basically the only country in the world that uses the Fahrenheit scale.

This is false. Fahrenheit is commonly used in Canada to this day. Awareness of the scale still exists in the UK as well. Any commonwealth country is likely to have awareness because metrication happened so late in those countries.

> This is false. Fahrenheit is commonly used in Canada to this day.

At least where I am, Celsius is the unit of choice, even among the older generation.

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

#427

Post by barbazoo »

revelio wrote: post #413
barbazoo wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ag…

Well, I hope you're right.

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

#428

Post by barbazoo »

bartislartfast wrote: post #269
Rygian wrote: post #8

For anyone interested in what 1.5C represents, I can't recommend enough the Climate Fresk [1] exercise. It's not just the droughts and floods, the heatwaves, the changes in birds, insects, crop yields, … Include permafrost melting and releasing greenhouse gasses, civil unrest in populated areas that won't be livable anymore, unstable food production, and quite a few other causes and consequences. It's a feedback loop…

I'm wondering what those workshops will teach people to do. Most of the advice I hear comes down to three things "Vote green at the polls"(1), "Vote with your wallet"(2) and "encourage others to do the same"(3) (1) I live in a democracy with ranked choice voting, and I always vote green #1, but the greens are in minority and the main parties are more interested in playing to the masses. sometimes they're in coalition…

> I'm wondering what those workshops will teach people to do.

Takes 3 hours of your time to find out.

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

#429

Post by mulmen »

barbazoo wrote: post #426
mulmen wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is false. Fahrenheit is commonly used in Canada to this day. Awareness of the scale still exists in the UK as well. Any commonwealth country is likely to have awareness because metrication happened so late in those countries.

> This is false. Fahrenheit is commonly used in Canada to this day. At least where I am, Celsius is the unit of choice, even among the older generation.

Even in the kitchen?

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

#430

Post by sazz »

myrmidon wrote: post #416
sazz wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It seems to me that you are not at all interested in a real solution to the problem. For you, the solution is already clear: everyone has to make their contribution, no matter how big or small.

The interesting thing is that your solution is not problem-driven, but purely ideological. Whether the solution can be implemented practicably, from my point of view doesn't seem to be any interest to you - as long as all subordinate themselves to some kind of strange socialist maxim, in which not the individual counts but only the people (in this case a kind of state union).

Because a problem-oriented approach for a solution would be to look at the number of political systems and what part of the CO2 budget they control. It makes a fundamental difference to implement effects in 20 different systems or in one. Because time matters. And therefore efficiency. So why waste time on Iceland if China plays a much more fundamental role in the issue.

So if China were divided into 20 political systems - states - the situation would be different. But it isn't. Again, it seems to me that you don't care about the structure of the problem as long as everyone follows the given morality plan.

And to answer your question - the first and only interest of an Indian rice farmer is to care about it's family. To fight starvation. And maybe that his or her children may have a better life than being an Indian rice farmer - so they spend their money rather on school education than having a single thought on global warming.

The same is roughly true for China. China's first interest is prosperity for its citizens. You don't stand at the head of such a country without looking at the needs of your own people.

Your whole solution is already going against the very nature of man: to be an egoist driven by instincts.

Do you really believe that the goals will be achieved worldwide? What if someone resists to join in? Do you then want to enforce these goals with weapons?

What I would really like to know is: Do you seriously believe that in the next 5-10 years humanity will overcome its differences and together put its economic interests aside to achieve the goal? And all this without the greatest social riots ever seen?

So do you really see a realistic possibility that the problem is solved in the next 10 years? And what happens if not?

Post reply on HN