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

Climate Change in a Nutshell: The Gathering Storm [pdf]

columbia.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 149 posts

Re: Climate Change in a Nutshell: The Gathering Storm [pdf]

#51

Post by randyrand »

I've long been in the camp that we worry about climate change more than makes rational sense.

I'm not saying we should ignore it, but we often overstate. It's worth remembering that the effects on QoL will be completely eclipsed by technological progress within that period and that the timescales that GW happen over (50+ years) are long enough that most people will hardly ever notice it. Gradual relocation will be our primary means of fighting it. Other cities will be raised, like Chicago was in the 1850s.

FUD is not a genuine approach to invoke action - which has sadly been the main approach of many. We should remain reasoned.

Re: Climate Change in a Nutshell: The Gathering Storm [pdf]

#52

Post by Brakenshire »

ilove_banh_mi wrote: post #14
strict9 wrote: post #2

Skimmed through this, but I can't make it all the way. It's so jarring and too depressing. I lump climate change deniers into the same category as flat-earthers. Although I have more respect for the latter, as at least they aren't blindly swallowing self-serving nonsense spewed by ignorant politicians and certain news outlets.

I don't think there are scientists who deny past or present climate change. Do you mean to disparage the many scientists who research the causes of past climate change, and who hypothesize that the current changes are, like all past changes, caused by other factors than the man-made, industrial-age rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide?

There are very few such climate scientists. Scientific skeptics mostly dispute the degree of warming projected, or some of the anticipated consequences.

Re: Climate Change in a Nutshell: The Gathering Storm [pdf]

#53

Post by yters »

Comevius wrote: post #35
vladimirralev wrote: post #13

I invite everybody to watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaiZ5BHaUMY A calm, collected, scientific representation of both sides.

There are literally no 2 sides . There is a ~97% scientific consensus, then there are these people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagre... . John Christy (the other side in your video) represents the ~3%. His research was shown to be wrong over and over again. Most recently in 2017: https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JTECH-D-16-0121... . https://www.theguardian.com/environment/clima…

Check out this wikipedia page that casts scientific consensus in a slightly different light:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theory

Re: Climate Change in a Nutshell: The Gathering Storm [pdf]

#54

Post by cagenut »

rebuilder wrote: post #47
cagenut wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, since this is a community in which many fancy themselves engineers, ground yourself in the numbers. The main ones being: - number of gigatons emitted to date - rate of ongoing emissions - change in the rate of ongoing emissions - what total emissions numbers correspond to what PPM in the atmosphere - what ppm in the atmosphere correspond to what degrees of C warming (in various timeframes) here is a nic…

I'm starting to wonder if telling people what they can personally change in their lives is actually counterproductive. The gains to be had there are not that great. Sure it's good to minimize energy use as you outline. But where does it leave you in terms of tonnes of CO2/year? AFAIK the Paris accord goals (inadequate as they are) imply a target of around 1500 kg of CO2 per capita yearly. Homeless people achieve that…

you're not wrong but careful not to fall into the internet's favorite form of broken depressive reasoning: splitting

the way you get mass action is by getting a mass of individuals to act. there is technically no other way. thats why I left the 'individual' stuff to the very end and made sure to explain how its not really about your footprint as much as its pulling your oar in the overall solution.

Re: Climate Change in a Nutshell: The Gathering Storm [pdf]

#55

Post by jibal »

jimjimjim wrote: post #17
marssaxman wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't worry about it too much. I did as much about global warming as I could find to do back when it counted, but I accomplished nothing. The planet is fucked, and there's nothing we can do about it now. The good news is that your kids won't know any better. They'll grow up in the desolate, unhealthy, ruined world we are leaving them, and they are going to love it - it'll be the only world they know, after all, and t…

so you're saying: "why bother trying to fix it. party on and let the next generation fix our problems"??? disgusting.

No that's not what s/he is saying, or anything like it.

Re: Climate Change in a Nutshell: The Gathering Storm [pdf]

#56

Post by yters »

ilove_banh_mi wrote: post #16

After solving global warming, should we be more concerned by the approaching end of the current interglacial period? The next glacial period of the current Ice Age is going to be terrible for our stage of technology and civilization. If we are serious about the current issues of climate change, and about potential asteroid impacts, why should we not also be planning for the mid- to long-term risk of the return to an…

This is an interesting question. Haven't there been much warmer periods in our planet's history that were followed by an ice age?

It is hard to sort out exactly what climate change means.

Re: Climate Change in a Nutshell: The Gathering Storm [pdf]

#57

Post by jibal »

ilove_banh_mi wrote: post #14
strict9 wrote: post #2

Skimmed through this, but I can't make it all the way. It's so jarring and too depressing. I lump climate change deniers into the same category as flat-earthers. Although I have more respect for the latter, as at least they aren't blindly swallowing self-serving nonsense spewed by ignorant politicians and certain news outlets.

I don't think there are scientists who deny past or present climate change. Do you mean to disparage the many scientists who research the causes of past climate change, and who hypothesize that the current changes are, like all past changes, caused by other factors than the man-made, industrial-age rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide?

"Do you mean to disparage the many scientists who research the causes of past climate change, and who hypothesize that the current changes are, like all past changes, caused by other factors than the man-made, industrial-age rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide?"

There are no such scientists, let alone "many". And it doesn't matter what people "hypothesize".

I know the names of the handful of "lukewarm" climate scientists who don't hold the consensus position; none of them take the position that you put forth, and I can be certain that you can't name any of these "many" scientists.

Re: Climate Change in a Nutshell: The Gathering Storm [pdf]

#58

Post by yters »

randyrand wrote: post #51

I've long been in the camp that we worry about climate change more than makes rational sense. I'm not saying we should ignore it, but we often overstate. It's worth remembering that the effects on QoL will be completely eclipsed by technological progress within that period and that the timescales that GW happen over (50+ years) are long enough that most people will hardly ever notice it. Gradual relocation will be ou…

If we were truly concerned, we should work on eliminating water vapor, since that accounts for much more of the greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide.

Or, pump out even more carbon dioxide to increase the warming and water vapor, and hence increase cloud cover to cool the earth.

Re: Climate Change in a Nutshell: The Gathering Storm [pdf]

#59

Post by ams6110 »

logjammin wrote: post #3

I'm in my thirties. I don't have kids, but want them. I don't want to admit to them that I did nothing about global warming when it counted. The thing is that I don't know what I should do; it seems so big, so intractable. Articles like these stir me to action, but what action? Where's the mass movement on this? Where's the group, the party, the leadership?

You can't do anything individually, other than vote for people who represent your point of view. The sorts of things that would make a difference, such as international agreements on CO2, can only be enacted by governments.

You can drive an EV, or stop eating beef, or pay the renewable-energy rate on your electric bill, and feel good about it if you want, but it won't make a bit of difference on a global scale.

Re: Climate Change in a Nutshell: The Gathering Storm [pdf]

#60

Post by cagenut »

ilove_banh_mi wrote: post #40
cagenut wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, since this is a community in which many fancy themselves engineers, ground yourself in the numbers. The main ones being: - number of gigatons emitted to date - rate of ongoing emissions - change in the rate of ongoing emissions - what total emissions numbers correspond to what PPM in the atmosphere - what ppm in the atmosphere correspond to what degrees of C warming (in various timeframes) here is a nic…

Two thoughts related to your "what to do" paragraph: - I vaguely recall a Fredric Brown (?) story where people turn to (conceptually, self-defense) violence against cars because they've reached the insight that the fumes are literally killing them, like cigarette smoke. - Some people (hmmm, "some people I know") have chosen direct action and planned+participated in sabotage of pipelines and railroads (used for coal a…

what happens to 10 million bangladeshi children when they go from having two or three rice crops a year to one or two?
Post reply on HN