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

Global warming has accelerated significantly

researchsquare.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

661–670 of 1001 posts

Re: Global warming has accelerated significantly

#661

Post by madaxe_again »

rootusrootus wrote: post #389
notarobot123 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically, those still unconvinced of the human influence on climate change seem to be the sort that would trust the basement randos more than they would reputable scientists

It's a culture thing, nobody on the right would ever be convinced by science, they will shop around until they find what they need to hear. My sister in law sent me a video and told me that she thought it was a really good explainer and had a lot of good facts and figures to support it. To humor her, I took a brief glance at it, and saw that it was produced by Dr. Shiva. I was thinking "no way, it can't be that Shiva…

Tell her that you have a greenfield synergistic solution to upscale her big tent.

Re: Global warming has accelerated significantly

#662

Post by blell »

tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #385
standeven wrote: post #303

The main driver of this is human-produced CO2, and there are meaningful ways to reduce usage. -Switch to an electric vehicle -Migrate from gas appliances (range, furnace, water heater) to electric (induction, heat pumps) -If your power grid isn’t clean, add rooftop or balcony solar -Encourage friends and family to do the same

Prices are a great incentive. In Germany, 1 kWh of electricity costs roughly 3x as much as 1 kWh of gas. That doesn't make heat pumps very attractive. Historically the differences were even worse. Relying on people individually making choices that are better for the environment at a disadvantage for themselves is not going to work.

[flagged]

Re: Global warming has accelerated significantly

#663

Post by breakpointalpha »

jtr1 wrote: post #212
ecshafer wrote: post #134

The issue with any significant steps to curbing the climate or environmental impacts with laws or treaties is always: But the economy. It creates an incentive where someone doesn't follow the laws, burn everything they can to accelerate their economy, and take industry from other countries. My proposal is thus: create a supranational treaty organization with a EPA like authority(or whatever the European equivalent is…

"But the economy" is an out-of-date framing. The cost of renewables has been plummeting for well over a decade. New renewables are now cheaper than new fossil fuel plants in most of the world, and in many regions they're already competitive with or cheaper than simply running existing fossil fuel infrastructure. As modern wars in Ukraine and now Iran are increasingly demonstrating, they are not only cost effective bu…

In principle, you are right. Cheaper than coal renewables are winning. Don't forget though, that fighter jets can't operate on batteries.

Re: Global warming has accelerated significantly

#664

Post by ares623 »

yoyohello13 wrote: post #507
vorticalbox wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i think the only real strategy is that people take a hit to their standard of living but i don't think anyone will sign up for that.

They don’t need to sign up for it. It will happen regardless.

They'll just continue blaming immigrants.

Re: Global warming has accelerated significantly

#665

Post by jrajav »

blell wrote: post #659
jihadjihad wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they are practicing the reverse scientific method. They hold a conclusion in their hand, like, man-made climate change is a hoax , and seek to find any threads of "evidence" that support their foregone conclusion.

You can apply that too to the “man-made climate change is real” argument.

Allegations of cherry-picking scant bits of evidence to support a claim are less effective when that claim is held up by vast quantities of distinct, high-quality evidence.

Re: Global warming has accelerated significantly

#666

Post by teamonkey »

NotGMan wrote: post #642
unethical_ban wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, credibility is one component of evaluating conclusions from evidence.

[flagged]

Their credibility and experience makes it more likely that they will have followed scientific procedures correctly, that their measuring techniques will not have obvious flaws and their findings reflect the evidence.

This is not an appeal to authority: the paper will be examined thoroughly by peer reviewers and likely by academics across the world, in part because of their credibility. That will take time. Meanwhile it should be taken seriously.

Re: Global warming has accelerated significantly

#667

Post by exceptione »

bko wrote: post #598
exceptione wrote: post #572

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't do the AC thing, it is a stupid trope under blogfluencers. There are no restrictions (besides positioning the outer unit in such a way that you cause your neighbors to lose sleep). As the summers get more extreme in Europe, more residents decide getting one is starting to pay off, so you see more AC's, but many people think they are doing fine without.

I can easily google restrictions and share them, and I have in other comments but let me throw it back at you. Why do 90% of Americans have AC while only 20% of Europeans do? Why does US have ~4 heat related deaths per million while Europe has ~235 per million? Do you think it's just stupidity (Europeans don't know the relationship between heat and AC)? Or poverty? Any other explanation? https://news.un.org/en/story/…

It is a statistic, 'treacherous' is a word often lurking around the corner.

No healthy person all of a sudden dies from heat, I am sorry to tell. If that would be the case, everyone would be as panicked as you are. Europe has comparatively older demographics. Heat risk mainly affects infants and the elderly.

Most EU countries have free health care, so even people not caring enough for themselves will have a comparatively higher chance to survive into an old age. But also those who didn't die because of a bad lifestyle are part of this demographic. Like I said, treacherous, because you should look at this demographic and start to ask how many hours of life expectancy is lost. Healthcare keeps finding that the elder people just don't drink enough during these warm days.

I guess that if you want to win back these hours, you have to convince those elderly people to install AC or get them to drink enough during hot days. At this age people have a certain flexibility of mind, complicated by the fact that heat waves these days are really more severe than in their lived past.

Let me assure you: if people think it is too hot for them at home and they don't see an alternative, they will install AC. It is affordable enough. But there might be a cultural difference, people don't think of AC as the first line of defense against the hot days. Environmental awareness is higher; AC's contribute to global warming. Anecdotally, looking around I see there is a preference for sun protection over AC's.

Re: Global warming has accelerated significantly

#668

Post by t0bia_s »

marcyb5st wrote: post #235
energy123 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The initial pain will be diffuse and not obviously caused by global warming. For example, destabilization of equatorial countries due to wet bulb temperatures, through multiple causal paths: worse education outcomes (many days off school during hot months), worse economy (can't work outside), worse life satisfaction -> more autocracies, more water scarcity. Then you get more emigration to the colder north, more confl…

I am not sure how not directly linked to global warming. I am currently on the phone but I remember a study that mentioned that Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh would see a deadly heat (wet bulb temperatures) from basically 0 as it is right now to 30 days/year by 2050 or 2060. I can't remember right now. If that is not linkable to global warming I am not sure what is. And that is a huge event. In Europe we are struggl…

There are also statistics showing that mortality because of cold is much higher than mortality because of heat.

About 9 times higher.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S254251962...

Re: Global warming has accelerated significantly

#669

Post by ACCount37 »

post-it wrote: post #486
01100011 wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about solar shades? Seems like a relatively quick and easy way to regulate solar input. It's nice too because you can quickly remove it if necessary.

Reducing sunlight to the surface means we lose solar power effectiveness and we need to use more power for artificial lighting to grow plants.

Not to a significant degree.

Preventing 1% of sunlight from hitting Earth is more than enough to offset climate change heating. It's not enough to make agriculture or photovoltaics uneconomical. In many regions, it might make agriculture more viable on the net, not less - by reducing climate risks.

Re: Global warming has accelerated significantly

#670

Post by epistasis »

tarr11 wrote: post #162
eykanal wrote: post #3

For those (like me) who don't know the authors, apparently they are well-published authors in the field of climate science whose work is very highly cited: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C39&q=gra... Not a perfect measure of whether this is a reputable article but at least readers should know this isn't from some randos in a basement somewhere.

It says this in bold red at the top - "This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal." I am not a climate scientist - how should I think about this statement? Normally I am looking for some statement that shows a document has been vetted.

For non-specialists, I think the most important view on papers is to not view them as nuggets of truth, but communications of a group of people who are trying to establish truth. No single paper is definitive!

Peer review is an important part of scientific publication, but it's also important for the general public to not view peer review as a full vetting. Peer reviewers look for things like reproducibility of the analysis, suitability of the conclusions given the methods, discussions of the limitations of the data and methods, appropriate statistical tests, correct approval from IRBs if there are humans or animals involved, and things like that. For many journals, the editors are also asking if the results are interesting and significant enough to meet the prestige of the journal.

Peer review misses things like intentional fraud, mistakes in computations, and of course any blind spots that the field has not yet acknowledged (for example, nearly every scientific specialty had to rediscover the important of splitting training and testing datasets for machine learning methods somewhat on their own, as new practitioners adopted new methods quickly and then some papers would slip through at the beginning when reviewers were not yet aware of the necessity of this split...)

Any single paper is not revealed truth, it's a step towards establishing truth, maybe. Science is supposed to be self-correcting, which also necessitates the mistakes that need correction. Climate science is one of the fields that gets the most attention and scrutiny, so a series of papers in that field goes a long ways towards establishing truth, much more so than, say, new MRI technology in psychology.

Post reply on HN