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

Earth had hottest 3-months on record; unprecedented sea temps & extreme weather

public.wmo.int

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 591 posts

Re: Earth had hottest 3-months on record; unprecedented sea temps & extreme weather

#431

Post by euroderf »

driverdan wrote: post #255
NotYourLawyer wrote: post #5

>If the C3S dataset only currently starts in 1979, how can you then provide temperatures relating to the pre-industrial era? >In order to relate global mean temperature derived from the C3S dataset (ERA5) to the pre-industrial era, we use the estimate that the 1981-2010 reference period is approximately 0.69°C and that the 1991-2020 reference period is approximately 0.88°C warmer than the period 1850-1900, the time p…

> To a skeptic You mean denier. We're way past skepticism, the overwhelming evidence shows climate change is real.

We are at the "well duh cigarettes do in fact harm your health" stage of climate debate.

Re: Earth had hottest 3-months on record; unprecedented sea temps & extreme weather

#432

Post by peoplefromibiza »

ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #416
peoplefromibiza wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Have you any evidence of Egypt having those kinds of wet bulb temperatures back then? Have you got evidence of climate change causing those kinds of wet bulb temperatures in large populated areas?

From https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jul/31/why-you-need... : > One 2015 study concluded extremes are likely to approach and exceed 35C in the region around the Arabian Gulf towards the end of the century if greenhouse gas emissions are not reined in, posing questions for human habitability there. > In 2020, research found that some coastal subtropical locations have already experienced WBTs of 35C, albeit o…

not evidence of something that would kill hundred of millions of humans.

But, more importantly,

The oft-cited 35C value comes from a 2010 theoretical study.

Simply put: nobody knows the real threshold and nobody put it to test.

I'm no denier in any way, but doom prophecies are usually wrong, they are used to scare people into action, but are based on the idea that nothing changes.

For example, planting trees is effective against heat waves, it's cheap and it's being done extensively, everywhere you look

China will aim to plant and conserve 70 billion trees by 2030 as part of the global tree movement

Re: Earth had hottest 3-months on record; unprecedented sea temps & extreme weather

#433

Post by sn9 »

vel0city wrote: post #277
markwkw wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, looking at lived experience the story is quite tricky. From the perspective of an individual it is very hard to detect this level of climate change. I can't tell how much warmer any given month was compared to even 20 years ago. We're talking about 28 vs 28.5°C average for a month. (and July and August made news because of pronounced anomalies, other months were probably even murkier stories due to…

I can experience it here in North Texas. We've had a lot more snow events in the past few years than the over a decade preceding. It used to be an every few years kind of thing, now there's a couple big ice storms every year. Massive difference. And it swings the other way in the summer too. Yeah, it's Texas, its hot. Upper 90s most days in the peak summer time. Every now a bad summer with a lot of 100F days. Now eve…

This summer has seen weeks or months where the lows haven't dropped below the high 70s F.

And that's only for a brief window of time before sunrise. It's still in the 90s F at midnight most nights.

Re: Earth had hottest 3-months on record; unprecedented sea temps & extreme weather

#434

Post by sn9 »

datameta wrote: post #152
moffkalast wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The more you think about it the more it becomes plainly obvious how unfathomably screwed we genuinely are.

If policies don't drastically change. Just imagine norwegian electric car subsidies but happening everywhere decades straight - for solar, wind, tidal, battery, pumped water stations, sand batteries. Perhaps a Sahara -> Europe solar megaproject (I remember a good discussion on HN about that). Separately, I wonder if a geoengineering megaproject is more likely to be funded than small incremental changes due to politic…

If solar and batteries are cheaper, you won't have to wait for political action.

Though obviously subsidizing those technologies would hasten their takeover.

Re: Earth had hottest 3-months on record; unprecedented sea temps & extreme weather

#435

Post by VoodooJuJu »

ricardobeat wrote: post #413
VoodooJuJu wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>people shouldn’t drive a 2-ton vehicle for 40km to buy 200g of Wagyu every other day Your example describes a fantasy. The vast majority of people do not travel anywhere close to 40km to buy groceries. Even in a car-centric country like America, the average driver travels just 4km. If someone has to travel 40km or more to get to a grocery store, it's because they live rural. People who travel that far for groceries…

That was hyperbole. But also not entirely unrealistic or uncommon, and I live in an european city with good public transport. If I want to buy something special like a good cut of beef, go to an asian market, I’ll be doing a 30km roundtrip by car. From what I’ve seen a roundtrip to Walmart in the US for weekly groceries can be in the same ballpark - even in the city, since the larger stores are always on the outskirt…

>That was hyperbole.

>But also not entirely unrealistic

Well which is it? Hyperbole or not, the intent behind it is the same, which seems to focus the climate change problem on some of the weakest sources of fuel consumption who also happen to be some of the poorest, most vulnerable people.

I think it's a kind of subconscious projection, that the example you've brought to the fore is those poor people driving to buy their groceries, not the industrial behemoths doing the real dirty work.

Re: Earth had hottest 3-months on record; unprecedented sea temps & extreme weather

#436

Post by jeffbee »

mikewarot wrote: post #272

Clearly we need to solve this problem, climate change is real, and it's here. However, we can't just stop using oil. It would lead to the death (by starvation) of most of humanity, mostly in the poorer parts of the world. We need a well managed transition away from fossil fuel inputs. One of the first things that should be shifted, as much as is possible, is from Industrial Farming which uses massive chemical inputs,…

Suburban middle class guy switching from driving an F150 to the Safeway to using an e-bike to get his groceries will not cause anyone to starve, but it will make a measurable dent in CO2 emissions. Do not frame this as an irreconcilable tension between starvation and plenty. The question is whether the average American consumer-bot can be coerced into not squandering the atmosphere at a rate 100x faster than the average human.

Re: Earth had hottest 3-months on record; unprecedented sea temps & extreme weather

#437

Post by moritz »

euroderf wrote: post #431
driverdan wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To a skeptic You mean denier. We're way past skepticism, the overwhelming evidence shows climate change is real.

We are at the "well duh cigarettes do in fact harm your health" stage of climate debate.

funny you should mention that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

Re: Earth had hottest 3-months on record; unprecedented sea temps & extreme weather

#438

Post by jules-jules »

wcoenen wrote: post #163
GartzenDeHaes wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I seem to recall that the first and second IPCC reports (I haven't read the newer ones) indicated that increases would continue for about 200 years, even if emissions went to zero.

The earth is indeed not in thermal equilibrium due to the speed of the recent CO2 increase, so warming would continue if atmospheric CO2 concentration would be held constant . However, atmospheric CO2 concentration would not stay constant after emissions stop. It would go down slowly, mainly because it would continue to dissolve into the oceans. This effect cancels out the above point. Which is why the IPCC says that…

Methane tipping points are already met, especially from tropical wetlands and the polar regions. Add to that the conversion of past carbon sinks to carbon emitters, such as the boreal forests and the Amazon and we are looking at a continued rise of both emissions and temps for a long time.

Re: Earth had hottest 3-months on record; unprecedented sea temps & extreme weather

#439

Post by wernercd »

rootusrootus wrote: post #332
wernercd wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same thing that's continued to happen: We adapt and create solutions. People have been screaming "everyone will die!!!" via religious based prophecies for... all of human history. The Cult Of Climate Change is no different: a little bit of truth and a lot of faith in Revelations and the unavoidable apocalypse. Prophecies like "all the icecaps will be gone by 2020" and "billions will die from starvation" (hint: th…

The problem with your argument is comparing climate science to religion. There -is- actual science to support the climate doomers. You can cherry pick headlines all you want, but the models have actually been pretty decent so far. Even a little too conservative. But it's a political problem in the end, anyway, not a science one.

"there is actual science"

There is SOME truth. but not all of it.

Just like there is truth in religions - be nice to your neighbors. Do unto others. Truth. surrounded by bullshit (religion, dogma, etc).

There is truth and "actual science"... but there's also half truths, lies, bad prophecies, etc.

"you can cherry pick" likewise, you can cherry pick some facts about carbon... and then ignore stuff like the destruction required to make batteries, the inability to recycle a MASSIVE fuckton of "green" (wind mill blades, batteries, solar panels, etc - all ending up in land fills).

"models" yeah... except that models are limited, have increasing error rates and you end up with the spaghetti modeling with the simple stuff like weather for next week - much less the weather for next year.

Speaking of cherry picking... you'll cherry pick one or two models from a decade ago and ignore the 100+ others that are wrong.

"political not science" it's both. and religious. It's faith in models that have been cherry picked while ignoring inconvenient truths about "green" solutions that are based on bad models that can't be proven and that don't cover all the possibilities.

the problem with your response is your apparent faith in science and, like a Catholic who will downplay problems with priests, you'll ignore the parts you are uncomfortable with.

climate change is real (little c, little c). Has been happening for... all of history.

Climate Change is not (big C, big C). It is a religion.

One is based on facts and science. the other is based on faith.

Re: Earth had hottest 3-months on record; unprecedented sea temps & extreme weather

#440

Post by seanmcdirmid »

jeffbee wrote: post #436
mikewarot wrote: post #272

Clearly we need to solve this problem, climate change is real, and it's here. However, we can't just stop using oil. It would lead to the death (by starvation) of most of humanity, mostly in the poorer parts of the world. We need a well managed transition away from fossil fuel inputs. One of the first things that should be shifted, as much as is possible, is from Industrial Farming which uses massive chemical inputs,…

Suburban middle class guy switching from driving an F150 to the Safeway to using an e-bike to get his groceries will not cause anyone to starve, but it will make a measurable dent in CO2 emissions. Do not frame this as an irreconcilable tension between starvation and plenty. The question is whether the average American consumer-bot can be coerced into not squandering the atmosphere at a rate 100x faster than the aver…

The guy is living in the suburbs, which means they aren’t going to the store very often as they probably live far away from it. That means they are getting more than a few bags of groceries, they don’t need an F150 for sure, but they probably aren’t getting to carry this with an e-bike.

Better for the suburban guy to become a city guy and walk or bike to the grocery store a few times a week. They get better veggies that way as well.

Post reply on HN