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

431–440 of 456 posts

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

#431

Post by revelio »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #423
revelio wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 curren…

You used the present tense in the post I replied to. But as you say, currently it's not true and there is no correlation between climate change and migration, because the climate hasn't actually changed anywhere near enough in any location to cause people to move.

> I haven't seen anyone claiming that previous climate change events (anthropogenic or not) were not accompanied by mass migration

What climate change events were you thinking of? Medieval warm period? I don't think there's any record of anything that we'd call a mass migration, any time in history beyond the past few hundred years. Not unless you count migrations that took place over tens of thousands of years as mass migration.

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

#432

Post by revelio »

dragonwriter wrote: post #412
revelio wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>> I doubt very much that climatologists (as opposed to, say, popular media) were predicting anything of the kind you describe with “absolute confidence”.

Here's proof but there's far more where it comes from.

Prediction, March 2000: According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event". "Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.

https://realclimatescience.com/2023/03/the-end-of-snow-8/

Reality, March 2023: Met Office weather: Snow could return as fresh -4C blast to hit UK. A return of wintry weather has not been ruled out despite the country now being in spring

https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/met-office...

Climatologists have a reputation for being always wrong not due to media mis-representation. The media by and large doesn't misrepresent what they're saying. They have that reputation because they keep making stupid predictions with absolute confidence that then don't come true, and they never admit that this has happened even though the archives are full of examples.

https://extinctionclock.org/

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

#433

Post by revelio »

barbazoo wrote: post #427
revelio wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Take a look at the extinction clock. It'll make you feel better (maybe)

https://extinctionclock.org/

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

#434

Post by noiv »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #420
noiv wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Glad to help understand.

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

#435

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

revelio wrote: post #432
dragonwriter wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>> I doubt very much that climatologists (as opposed to, say, popular media) were predicting anything of the kind you describe with “absolute confidence”. Here's proof but there's far more where it comes from. Prediction, March 2000: According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare…

What do you think "a few years" means to a climate scientist?

Actually asking, this is not rhetorical.

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

#436

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

revelio wrote: post #431
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 curren…

You used the present tense in the post I replied to. But as you say, currently it's not true and there is no correlation between climate change and migration, because the climate hasn't actually changed anywhere near enough in any location to cause people to move. > I haven't seen anyone claiming that previous climate change events (anthropogenic or not) were not accompanied by mass migration What climate change even…

> the climate hasn't actually changed anywhere near enough in any location to cause people to move.

Where I live (near Santa Fe, NM), human civilization has moved in and out several times over the last, say, 5000 years, always correlated with the arrival of long term drought conditions. The last big movement was during the megadrought of the late 1300's, and apparently involved migrations of between 300 and 1000 miles.

Similar patterns are well known to archaeologists and anthropologists across the planet.

Also "and migration" doesn't have any tense or time context and even the GP's wording ("X tends to correlate with Y") is also largely free of any implied time period.

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

#437

Post by revelio »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #435
revelio wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> I doubt very much that climatologists (as opposed to, say, popular media) were predicting anything of the kind you describe with “absolute confidence”. Here's proof but there's far more where it comes from. Prediction, March 2000: According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare…

What do you think "a few years" means to a climate scientist? Actually asking, this is not rhetorical.

It means the same as any other person who says it. "A few", as in, maybe 3 to 5 years. That's why he said children won't know what snow is. If they were small children in 2000 then by 2003 snow is gone, they won't remember it.

But yea, sure, if you want to argue that he wasn't speaking English and that "Children just aren't going to know what snow is" didn't happen then go for it, that'll be amusing to read.

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

#438

Post by barbazoo »

revelio wrote: post #433
barbazoo wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I hope you're right.

Take a look at the extinction clock. It'll make you feel better (maybe) https://extinctionclock.org/

What a fun page. Not sure how honest it is though.

> Possible 'adverse health impacts in Australia from climate change' by 2020. From Climate Commission's 'The Critical Decade: Climate Change and Health' report, quote: "We need to act now. Decisions we make from now to 2020 will determine the severity of climate change health risks that our children and grandchildren will experience. The longer we wait, the more serious the consequences. [...] Figure 8: Possible timeline of some future adverse health impacts in Australia from climate change". Graphic showing: "Extreme weather events: deaths, hospital admissions, mental health disorders", "Dengue fever", and "Gastroenteritis" to increase from 2010 to 2019 cited from an unpublished article by McMichael in 2011.

Many would say the wildfires in 2020 were one of the worst in history and definitely had adverse health impacts I would say, no? Yet the page says it didn't come true.

Many others don't consider that predictions were made waaaaay before we had the means to model the impact of climate change on a grand scale. Others are just silly, who cares what Prince Charles said. Well, I guess denialists made their point once again.

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

#439

Post by paranoidrobot »

mulmen wrote: post #391
paranoidrobot wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Awareness is not the same thing as familiarity. If you give temperatures in Fahrenheit, most people outside the US (and Canada) are going to need to convert that to Celsius.

Yes, most people will. But that’s more than just America being familiar with Fahrenheit and allows for a disproportionately larger population of Fahrenheit-literate people in the commonwealth.

> disproportionately larger population of Fahrenheit-literate people in the commonwealth

Fahrenheit-literacy, at least in Australia, is practically zero for anyone under 60-70 that has lived outside the US.

Even folks who grew up with it. In Australia they have have spent the last 40 years using Celsius for everything. You tell them something in Fahrenheit and they're going to pause, have to think "How do I convert that".

But anyway, the point was that it's not false to say "The US is basically the only country in the world that uses the Fahrenheit scale."

Basically everywhere else DOES use Celsius.

For day to day understanding of weather and climate, using anything other than Celsius is going to confuse or frustrate more people than it's going to help. Regardless of whether they're in or out of the Commonwealth.

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

#440

Post by paranoidrobot »

mulmen wrote: post #390
Swinx43 wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is unfortunately not correct. I grew up in a commonwealth country, have travelled to many others, and now live in the UK. Not a single person I know in either country has even the faintest idea what Fahrenheit numbers mean for temperature. It is never used in any way in these countries.

It is used for cooking in Canada even today. Here’s a UK weather report from 1987 that uses both Celsius and Fahrenheit: https://youtu.be/NnxjZ-aFkjs . Celsius is the default but there are living people in the UK who recall using the Fahrenheit scale. This is much less common outside the commonwealth.

An example from 1987 isn't particularly a good example.

The BBC's weather reports are all in Celcius: https://www.bbc.com/weather/2643743

Post reply on HN