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

Swiss glaciers have shrunk by a quarter since 2015, study says

france24.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 102 posts

Re: Swiss glaciers have shrunk by a quarter since 2015, study says

#81

Post by ahmeneeroe-v2 »

maxglute wrote: post #73
ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CO2 since 1750! This isn't serious. Who is currently today doing the thing? china Does the climate care about per capita? no

Total historic emissions is the ONLY serious metric. Since it accounts for all capital buildouts, it takes centuries of emission heavy construction to get developed countries where they are. Countries are going to emit more when they're in steel and concrete phase of nation building. Does climate care about emissions? Does climate care about changing? No. Climate doesn't care it cycles back to ice age. Humans (hypoth…

Why does China have the right to "develop" when they are already one of the most advanced countries on the planet?

Do they get to advance until they're in first place? And then what? It stops there or does India get a shot at being first place? Then Nigeria?

Meanwhile what does the climate look like if every single country executes the China 1945-2025 playbook?

Re: Swiss glaciers have shrunk by a quarter since 2015, study says

#82

Post by ahmeneeroe-v2 »

tonfa wrote: post #62
ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CO2 since 1750! This isn't serious. Who is currently today doing the thing? china Does the climate care about per capita? no

What matters is how much CO2 was dumped in the atmosphere (and to stop doing it, China is transitioning, the US administration tells everyone it's a scam...)

It doesn't matter because it's done. There is nothing we can do about it, only about the present. China is presently the worst CO2 emitter.

Re: Swiss glaciers have shrunk by a quarter since 2015, study says

#83

Post by ahmeneeroe-v2 »

triceratops wrote: post #71
ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CO2 since 1750! This isn't serious. Who is currently today doing the thing? china Does the climate care about per capita? no

> CO2 since 1750! This isn't serious. Who is currently today doing the thing? > Does the climate care about per capita? It does care about CO2 since 1750 though because that CO2 never went away. It's at least as important as, if not more than "Who is currently today doing the thing?"

No. The incremental CO2 is what is harming us. We're already experiencing the effects of 1750 to present. What happens from now on will incrementally deteriorate the climate.

Re: Swiss glaciers have shrunk by a quarter since 2015, study says

#84

Post by [deleted] »

ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote: post #82
tonfa wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What matters is how much CO2 was dumped in the atmosphere (and to stop doing it, China is transitioning, the US administration tells everyone it's a scam...)

It doesn't matter because it's done. There is nothing we can do about it, only about the present. China is presently the worst CO2 emitter.

[deleted]

Re: Swiss glaciers have shrunk by a quarter since 2015, study says

#85

Post by quesera »

triceratops wrote: post #67
ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CO2 emissions by country: China vs US. Number only.

> China vs US. Number only. China: down 2.7% this year US: up 4.2%. That's total, not per-capita. Try some other excuses to do nothing about climate change. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45108292

https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/china?country=CHN~USA

I'm no expert, but if these data are correct, emissions in China are growing dramatically, and in the US they are trending downward at (honestly) an unexpectedly impressive rate.

China is currently emitting well over 2x what the US does, and extrapolation from the last 25 years suggests that China will exceed the US, on a per-capita basis, in a handful of years.

This is somewhat counter-narrative. But assuming it's correct, the questions become: How bad would it be if China was not taking the problem seriously, and how much better would the US be if they were taking the problem seriously?

Re: Swiss glaciers have shrunk by a quarter since 2015, study says

#86

Post by HK-NC »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #48
graeme wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope so, but to do that it isn't enough to make renewables economical. You also have to make carbon uneconomical. China's CO2 emissions have continued to increase rapidly along with renewables. Energy is really useful and we don't have enough to fulfil demand. Unless renewables + nuclear are cheaper than carbon and not supply constrained I'd expect both sources to increase in tandem.

> Energy is really useful and we don't have enough to fulfil demand. Enough sunlight falls on Earth in ~30 min to power humanity for a year. There is currently a capture constraint, not a supply constraint, which is currently being solved for. > Unless renewables + nuclear are cheaper than carbon and not supply constrained I'd expect both sources to increase in tandem. Renewables are cheaper than carbon, even when ac…

>enough sunlight to power earth for a year

Is that based on the entire surface of the earth, or just dry land?

Re: Swiss glaciers have shrunk by a quarter since 2015, study says

#87

Post by toomuchtodo »

HK-NC wrote: post #86
toomuchtodo wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Energy is really useful and we don't have enough to fulfil demand. Enough sunlight falls on Earth in ~30 min to power humanity for a year. There is currently a capture constraint, not a supply constraint, which is currently being solved for. > Unless renewables + nuclear are cheaper than carbon and not supply constrained I'd expect both sources to increase in tandem. Renewables are cheaper than carbon, even when ac…

>enough sunlight to power earth for a year Is that based on the entire surface of the earth, or just dry land?

My understanding of the fact is entire surface. I can provide citations related to only usable solar and wind potential, if so desired.

> or just dry land?

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

https://www.rwe.com/en/research-and-development/solar-energy...

https://www.nrel.gov/news/detail/press/2025/floating-solar-p...

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/long-popular-in-asia-fl...

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221462962...

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136403212...

https://time.com/china-massive-floating-solar-field/

https://theelectricityhub.com/seychelles-launches-floating-s...

Re: Swiss glaciers have shrunk by a quarter since 2015, study says

#88

Post by lolc »

If you like to nerd out on data, the GLAMOS website publishes a catalog of all glaciers in Switzerland, with measurements for the larger ones:

https://www.glamos.ch/en/factsheet#/B36-26

Some years the glacier count goes down, because a glacier disappears. Some years the glacier count goes up, when a glacier shrinks and splits in two.

Re: Swiss glaciers have shrunk by a quarter since 2015, study says

#89

Post by [deleted] »

ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote: post #81
maxglute wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Total historic emissions is the ONLY serious metric. Since it accounts for all capital buildouts, it takes centuries of emission heavy construction to get developed countries where they are. Countries are going to emit more when they're in steel and concrete phase of nation building. Does climate care about emissions? Does climate care about changing? No. Climate doesn't care it cycles back to ice age. Humans (hypoth…

Why does China have the right to "develop" when they are already one of the most advanced countries on the planet? Do they get to advance until they're in first place? And then what? It stops there or does India get a shot at being first place? Then Nigeria? Meanwhile what does the climate look like if every single country executes the China 1945-2025 playbook?

[deleted]

Re: Swiss glaciers have shrunk by a quarter since 2015, study says

#90

Post by triceratops »

quesera wrote: post #85
triceratops wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> China vs US. Number only. China: down 2.7% this year US: up 4.2%. That's total, not per-capita. Try some other excuses to do nothing about climate change. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45108292

https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/china?country=CHN~USA I'm no expert, but if these data are correct, emissions in China are growing dramatically, and in the US they are trending downward at (honestly) an unexpectedly impressive rate. China is currently emitting well over 2x what the US does, and extrapolation from the last 25 years suggests that China will exceed the US, on a per-capita basis, in a handful of y…

That chart only goes up to 2023. The reduction is from this year.

> how much better would the US be if they were taking the problem seriously?

I wish we lived in that world too.

Post reply on HN