It’s official: July was Earth’s hottest month on record

I know someone who does this and also argues at the same time that diesel engines are better for the environment, I'm pretty sure based on the efficiency but ignoring the exhaust

bzzzt• 5 years ago

That's true: diesel engines generally have higher mpg and lower CO2 emissions than gasoline. Problem is they emit higher levels of nitrogen oxide (ask Volkswagen) which beside being a greenhouse gas also poisons the environment. Presumably newer cars with Adblue systems which greatly reduce the amount of emitted NOX could be better for the environment than gasoline powered cars.

gruez3• 5 years ago

As much as this is (anti?) virtue-signaling, it's not really a contributor to global warming. Idling the engine for a minute or two probably causes more co2 emissions. The main concern is the particulate emissions.

orf4• 5 years ago

It’s not the act itself, it’s the fact that there is a segment of the population that will spend thousands of dollars to modify their cars to pollute more, so that they can try and humiliate people driving hybrid and electric cars.

That’s a symptom of a much, much deeper problem.

systemvoltage2• 5 years ago

This always gets brought up and it's a distraction from the real coal power plants that contribute to double digit CO2 emissions.

Some guy blowing up smoke in the truck might make you raged but it's misplaced. Can we get raged at the coal powered power plants?

myko2• 5 years ago

The problem is it is difficult to solve the issue with the coal powered plants when huge segments of the population are fine with "rolling coal" and think it's good to dump on EVs and green policy in general.

UnpossibleJim• 5 years ago

https://www.ecori.org/climate-change/2019/10/4/global-warmin....

There are more than just power plants to worry about... Concrete is 8% of our CO^2 emissions, agriculture is 9%. There are these things that no one thinks about that need to be addressed as well that sneak under the radar. There are teams working on them that don't get the glitz and glamour (or funding) that will make an impact, if adopted.

EDIT:

I'm not downplaying transportation pollution... just a quick edit to make it clear.

Wohlf• 5 years ago

These people don't matter, a single day of traffic in LA does far more damage than they could ever do.

Jtsummers2• 5 years ago

Their individual contributions don't matter, but they definitely matter. They represent a substantial portion of the population who simply do not care about the environment and believe in its active destruction in their own neighborhoods and cities. This is important to recognize.

They're the tip of the iceberg, as it were, the visible portion of a largely invisible but sizeable community who establish (through direct action, voting, and how they spend their money) a pattern of willful environmental destruction. And this is even without considering climate change. These are the people who think it's fine to toss garbage on the street, which has a much clearer and short-delay impact. If they don't care about that, good luck getting them to think on anything with long-delay impacts.

bitsoda• 5 years ago

Thanks, I see this occasionally in South Florida, but never knew there was a term for it. If it were me I'd have pulled over my bike for 10 minutes and waited for the air to clear. I'll never understand the motivations of some people...

SigmundA10• 5 years ago

Then again https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solarpunk is thing.

Teslas and solar panels are cool now.

There is some hope.

lmilcin13• 5 years ago

Who still believes global warming does not exist?

I am currently listening to audiobook of Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six (1998). It has a paragraph on global warming and trying to convince POTUS it is real. And POTUS not wanting to act on it because it would be too large economic drag on US.

This book is almost quarter of century old.

thatguy0900• 5 years ago

I suspect more deniers just think it will be the next generations problem rather than something that entirely doesn't exist, personally

vkou2• 5 years ago

I think denialism has moved on to 'We're fine as we are, this is a problem that developing countries should be solving.'

monocasa5• 5 years ago

That's not my experience, at least for those denying while not in policy positions to do anything about it. They're actually fairly responsive to "let's really make sure we're not making our grand kids lives harder" kind of arguments if phrased in a way that doesn't set off preprogrammed responses.

They've just been so inundated with propaganda that they take the terms "act of god" so literally that they don't believe at a base level that humanity has the power to modify climate in ways that'll hurt us in the long term. Sort of that Teddy Roosevelt line of thinking; when he heard that buffalo were going extinct he organized a hunting party to not miss out before they were all gone. The idea is that any problems we cause, we'll be able to fix after the fact or won't really matter. The idea of being shepherds of the earth rather than simply inhabitants is a very new one, at least among western cultures.

SigmundA10• 5 years ago

Most of the deniers I know have shifted from it doesn't exist to either its not man made and just a natural cycle or it may actually be a good thing because plants like CO2 and warmth...

pbuzbee• 5 years ago

Agreed. I see less overall denial and instead more softening of the denial. "The earth's climate has always changed!" and "Sure climate is changing, but can you even say what an ideal climate is?"

lmilcin13• 5 years ago

The "it's not man made" and "just a natural cycle" is easily disproven by showing historical temperatures change where it does, by pure accident, a hockey stick trick just last century.

Or it would if the audience wasn't resistant to proofs altogether...

headmelted6• 5 years ago

I had to explain this to a relative who started in with the “the earth has always had climate change” jibberish.

They tried to tell me no-one knows how the last Ice Age happened. So I explained, but because they didn’t understand any of the concepts involved they thought I was just making it up.

It’s a good reminder never to assume malice when plain old stupidity is on the table.

headmelted6• 5 years ago

I think part of the problem is that we started talking about global warming (“nice! More sunshine!!”) to climate change (“cool! We get too much snow here anyway!!”).

Maybe instead of talking about climate change, which is a symptom and not the problem, we should talk about “destabilising the atmosphere”.

I feel like people will find it harder to use nonsense arguments if they’re confronted with the problem rather than the explanation.

crispyambulance2• 5 years ago

Yeah, I heard about that but was skeptical that people could take that position non-sarcastically until recently when driving on the PA Turnpike, I saw this...

https://twitter.com/co2coalition/status/1397912884756107269

The cynical dishonesty of an organization creating a billboard like that boggles my mind.

eli6• 5 years ago

I don't think it's worthwhile to spend much time on the reasons people cite to ignore or deny climate change.

Hardly anybody is making a genuine effort to look at what's going on and concluding it's not a problem at all. People are against it, often, because of tribalism. They don't like the people who complain the loudest about climate change and the political party they're aligned with says not to worry about it (for a variety of reasons). The climate crisis is also genuinely scary and it is much more comforting to believe that it can't be as bad as they say it is.

The number of voters who say climate change is important is growing every year (currently about half say it's a "critical threat") but that increase has come almost entirely from Democrats and Independent in the US.

paulddraper2• 5 years ago

Yes.

So now, if you doubt any of (1) it's man made (2) it's terrible (3) it's fixable, you're a "climate change denier."

sva_• 5 years ago

Don't forget the camp of people who say "It exists, and we're past the point at which we can do something about it."

I have to say, that on some days I almost feel like I share that mindset, as the promise of democracy that I was raised up on does not seem to bear fruits. It feels like people have learned to game the system too well.

marcc• 5 years ago

Also have heard folks make an argument that it's more economical to plan to live in the post-climate changed world than to stop climate change. See https://www.amazon.com/False-Alarm-Climate-Change-Trillions/...

pessimizer2• 5 years ago

There is a severely underestimated group of religious people who think that only God controls the weather, His reasons for what he does with it are not for you to evaluate, and that saying that humans can change the weather is blasphemy.

It's easy to make fun of, but the most direct experience that people have of a God who controls the universe would be the weather. These people need to be approached theologically; secular explanations are not going to hack it. The fact that polluters have an easy job getting their support doesn't mean that the ideas that they have about the weather originate from polluters.

To preempt a certain type of response, telling them that "climate" is different than "weather" is not going to work unless you can cite a biblical verse that explains that distinction.

We (middle-class PMCs) vastly underestimate the number of honest fundamentalists the same way we vastly underestimate the number of English-speaking illiterates. I'm always amused on HN when people in a thread realize that the reference to demonic possession or witchcraft by another commenter was completely in earnest.

throwaway8943454• 5 years ago

Personally I'm more concerned about the absolutely tepid response by folks who allegedly believe in climate change. I don't know how we are going to put a dent in climate change without something like carbon pricing (something that incentivizes us to reduce our carbon emissions). Instead the best case is that we're going to write progressives a check for $3.5T and they'll use a little bit of it to create a "civilian climate corps" and rebates for EVs and EV charging stations. Not the response I would expect to an existential threat.

Yeah, it's fun to blame Republicans for not believing in climate change (and they deserve a lot of blame), but I have a much harder time with people who profess a belief in climate change but behave like climate policy is a nice-to-have.

Downvoters: How are the Democratic reconciliation bill's climate provisions up to the challenge of tackling climate change? Why is climate change a middling priority on the agenda? Or is it all just okay because the Republicans are worse (i.e., we shouldn't let Democratic failure to address climate change distract from the more important work of blaming-Republicans-as-sport)?

generalizations2• 5 years ago

I've been hearing the 'it's a natural cycle' argument for decades. The arguments haven't shifted, it's just that more recently the warmer weather has prompted anecdotal arguments for climate change ("See! It's warmer! Global warming is real!"), and the 'natural cycle' argument is the more relevant rebuttal to that.

bawolff• 5 years ago

If only we were a plant

tzs3• 5 years ago

Another shift if from denial to acknowledging it is real, significantly man-made, and should be addressed--but then rejecting any reduction to emissions on the grounds that it might hurt the economy [1]. All they will support are things like planting trees or offering tax credits for recapture.

Perhaps most ridiculous in rejecting emissions reduction is Senator Rubio who "said it made no sense for the United States to cut its emissions while other countries like China continue to pollute. But at the same time, he also rejected trade policies that would apply pressure on China and others to curb their emissions".

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/13/climate/republicans-clima...

api4• 5 years ago

I was very much a skeptic until I started seeing more and more real world (as opposed to just models) evidence. I am pretty convinced now.

My skepticism was rooted in the fact that politicians, pundits, and the media were trying to scare me about it. Any time politicians or the media try to scare me about anything my default response is to assume it's a get out the vote drive or a power grab and to become extremely skeptical. This isn't partisan. It doesn't matter if the politician is "left" or "right."

I still think that should be a default suspicion, but that means you have to dig and check the details and check multiple sources.

ancientworldnow• 5 years ago

If anything, politicians globally are hugely downplaying the risks of climate change and betting on being out of office before the worst effects manifest.

imoverclocked6• 5 years ago

Did the plethora of scientists claiming that it was an issue not factor in at all?

jacquesm17• 5 years ago

So why listen to the politicians in the first place, instead of to the scientists who have been as united about this as they have ever been about any major subject? There is some fringe but the consensus is extremely clear.

majormajor• 5 years ago

Politicians were also saying "there's nothing to worry about." Shouldn't you be at least equally skeptical whenever someone in power promotes maintaining the status quo?

Seems like a rather useless razor, since politicians often both say pro- and against- arguments for things.

But here especially, "politicians" or "the media" trying to scare you about it is a bit of a red herring. E.g., the media was talking about it because scientists were making claims. Scientists have been wrong before, of course, but discounting the claim because "the media" picked up on it instead of looking into things like "how many scientists" "how long is the trend" "what is the reasoning" is just foolish.

monocasa5• 5 years ago

I've found that a better model is to ignore politicians. They don't care about you, true, but that means that what they're saying is orthogonal to your wellbeing not opposite. Assuming the opposite still lets them define the playfield and works to their advantage.

nemo44x2• 5 years ago

OP was voted down by others but I respect their honesty about it. And the point about their perception of fear being used as a motivator and resulting skepticism. I think a lot of people feel this way.

I think people are "crisis hardened" at this point. So much news and opinion about most everything is framed as a "crisis" and people are just sort of tuned out to it and they're sick of being made anxious about everything. It feels a whole lot better to have someone else say "don't listen, they're just trying to scare you to get power" and people will tune into that eventually.

I think people see hypocrisy all over the place as well, especially in the climate issue and people hate being preached to. People hate hearing that they shouldn't have meat, they shouldn't have a car, they shouldn't fly, etc. They fear the currently proposed solutions like taxing these heavily or rationing it. Simply put, people at large will not get behind a massive project like this politically until it is sold as something that makes their lives better. That they don't have to give these things up but that we should work towards doing them better.

It's especially difficult with this issue too since it's been sold poorly (global warning, then why is it freezing today?!) and it's a very slow process when considering a human's life. Yes, the data we have and the models we have are compelling. However, denial is a powerful thing especially when people are told to listen to an authority that wants to take their pleasures away.

I just don't think going around calling other people idiots or asking why they didn't just listen to scientists (science and especially scientists are not infallible.) is very useful. To get a super majority behind this we need to sell it as a project to not take away anything but to find new ways of doing it without putting excessive CO2 into the atmosphere. That you can have a steak, and a car, and un your AC, and travel but that we also need to agree to finance projects in making these things sustainable. That engineering ourselves a better future is possible and that stopping doing things doesn't have to be the way.

I don't know, I just think psychology of how it is being sold is ineffective. Unlivable conditions, death, the Earth's destruction should motivate people but the threat just isn't imminent enough for people to sacrifice. I think it does the opposite and sends people looking for a safe place where it's going to be OK and anyone who tells you otherwise is just trying to pick your pocket. Our style of government is not great at unifying around big projects and unless the threat is clearly imminent and/or in progress. We need persuasion to win and positive visions for the future to get there.

lm28469• 5 years ago

I was very much a skeptic until I started seeing more and more real world (as opposed to just models) evidence. I am pretty convinced now.

There is an enormous momentum, by the time the model predictions are here in the """real world""" you already have both feet in the grave...

ajross5• 5 years ago

My skepticism was rooted in the fact that politicians, pundits, and the media were trying to scare me about it.

I'm sorry, but this excuse borders on a clear lie. There were "politicians, pundits, and media" lined up on both sides of this issue. And there had been going all the way back to the dawn of the issue in the 70's.

What happened was that you chose to believe one side. And it was wrong. But rather than admit that "your side" was wrong you're blaming the "other side" for, I guess, making you distrust them on a subject where you should have trusted them.

I still think that should be a default suspicion, but that means you have to dig and check the details and check multiple sources.

Which is exactly what you did not do! You get that, right? Rather than check details and multiple sources, you chose to walk away from the people who were telling you the truth.

wk_end• 5 years ago

Just based on what I can gleam from things like Facebook newspaper comment sections: there are certainly still some deniers, but I feel like outright denialism has mostly given way to a belief that global warming isn't man-made - that it's a natural part of Earth's climate cycle - and that releasing carbon could only be good for the planet (plants breathe CO2 after all).

mc323• 5 years ago

The important policy question is what are big and small governments around the world gonna do about it?

No, straws and plastic bags won’t abate it. Electric cars are nice but won’t do much to lessen emissions.

They need to address industry, shipping and population growth. The last one might be a third rail for some countries. But look, China did it. The west did it (via progress on education, etc).

redisman3• 5 years ago

Population control sure doesn’t seem to have had any positive effect on the west’s greenhouse emissions so why would it be a silver bullet?

paganel• 5 years ago

and population growth

That will be a very hard sell, as most of the people that count and actually take the decisions that matter still don't believe in Malthus.

The west did it (via progress on education, etc).

Unfortunately that is still not enough as long as those same Western consumers will keep, well, consuming as much as they do. Problem is that changing today's consumption patterns will most probably have huge (negative) economic consequences for most of the world's population.

dleslie6• 5 years ago

Banning plastic straws and plastic bags wasn't to combat climate change, the bans were created because those single-use plastics were overwhelming municipal garbage disposal systems. And then foreign states stop buying it to recycle.

notJim2• 5 years ago

No, straws and plastic bags won’t abate it.

Straws and plastic bags are about pollution more than global warming, I think.

They need to address industry, shipping and population growth. The last one might be a third rail for some countries. But look, China did it. The west did it (via progress on education, etc).

I'm not a malthusian, but there's still good news for those types. Birth rates have greatly declined globally, and continue to go down. This is largely due to greater access to education and contraception, which I think we can almost all agree are good things.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN

Electric cars are nice but won’t do much to lessen emissions.

Transportation is 29% of emissions in the US, and over their lifespan, electric cars have much reduced emissions. They will get better as we transition away from fossil fuels, unlike gasoline cars. Fun fact: in the US, 40% of our power already comes from nuclear and renewables.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...

gwbas1c• 5 years ago

Banning straws is virtue signaling. (Plastic straws have little impact on waste.)

Banning plastic bags has immediate results in containing visible litter.

908B64B1973• 5 years ago

They need to address industry, shipping

That would be possible with well thought out tariffs. Foreign countries (like China) have no problem bringing online coal power plants at an out of control pace. Then, with all these cheap power plants it's no wonder they can undercut every European and American manufacturer, who has to pay for green energy and environmental norms.

imoverclocked6• 5 years ago

I want to know what percentage of people overlap between anti-vaxxers, flat-earthers and climate deniers. Are they largely the same group or do we actually have disparate groups that think science is somehow just another religion?

jacquesm17• 5 years ago

Yes, I think you are right that there is significant overlap between 'extreme right' 'anti vaxx' 'climate denial' and quite possibly 'white power' and the modern version of Christianity as well, it would be nice to see some hard proof or a refutation of this.

carabiner• 5 years ago

swader9993• 5 years ago

Practically no one is a flat earther. Anti-vaxxers - maybe 2% of population. Again, not significant. Anti-mRNA - higher, maybe 20% with a portion of those just waiting to see.

Climate deniers - Depends how you define them.

I've been called that but my position is that it is happening, some of it is attributable to human activity, but it is not happening at a rate that we won't be able to adapt to.

iammisc7• 5 years ago

Well, speaking as someone who used to live in Marin county, which was the county with some of the highest non-vaccination rates in the country when I was there in 2018, I think they're different. Marin was super anti-vax, but every other thing was about reducing our carbon footprint, and anti-consumption was a common sentiment. Of course it was also one of the bluest counties in the country.

polote4• 5 years ago

Who still believes global warming does not exist?

The same people who think there are more risks for old people to take the covid vaccine than to not take it.

Not everyone is rational, and especially on climate change were acting means much more than moving 10km to get the vaccine

hotz• 5 years ago

Maybe if the cost of it was reasonable more people would bother. With the cost of electricity rising, people naturally buy/replace appliances with more efficient versions. The fact that anything green related costs an arm and a leg makes some people think it's all a money making scheme. The more renewable energy gets installed the more articles like this pop up. We get it, people are worried about the climate, pushing it this hard just feels like feels like fearmongering or propaganda.

anyfoo9• 5 years ago

You should not be downvoted for stating your opinion, I think it adds to the conversation.

That being said, can you elaborate on how "anything green related" costs an arm and a leg? Do you have a few examples maybe?

If it refers to something like organic food, then, well, yeah... mass producing food without regard for anything but efficiency in creating said food will make it cheaper, not doing that means higher prices for still turning out a profit.

But I don't want to put words in your mouth, please say what you were thinking of.

derriz• 5 years ago

Except electricity costs are not rising - renewables are having the opposite effect actually. For example, in Europe, in the last ten years, wholesale electricity prices have on average nearly halved despite the four-fold increase in the contribution from renewables. Renewables are cheaper and better for the environment - just check out the LCOE numbers and capacity factors.

convolvatron• 5 years ago

you'd think that asking capitalists to user more energy-efficient processes would be an easy sell because of cost.

apparently thats just completely backwards

bwship3• 5 years ago

I wouldn't call myself a denier. But a hot July doesn't sound that scary. Next thing that will happen is February will be the coldest month ever recorded, and then people will really lose their shit.

cryptoz5• 5 years ago

Why is it not scary? The hot July killed 1000 people in the Pacific Northwest alone in just 1 week. An entire Canadian town burned the the ground, basically nothing left. Residents had 15 minutes warning and not everyone made it out. Where are you located that this hot July wasn't scary?

This hot July had my fingers on emergency services as temperatures rose, AC couldn't keep up, loved ones with asthma and already trouble breathing sometimes, etc. This hot August has unhealthy fire smoke and it's difficult for me to breath outside if on a long walk.

Physical realities of this hot July for just me, in my one physical location, were INTENSE. And that's not even considering the idea that most future Julys will be hotter than this one.

And that every month being so hot is a leading indicator of more chaotic weather in all the bad ways - storms, heatwaves, etc.

I honestly don't know how you could live through this July and not be scared of it. Maybe you got lucky with your location? This July was 100% miserable to live through and totally scary.

4ec0755f55222• 5 years ago

Where I have lived my entire life, the hottest I'd ever seen in my is 33C. That would be an unusual year. The hottest summer days might hit 30C. This is 100 years, historically: over 30 is possibly, but unusual. Years where 29C is the hottest day is completely typical.

End of June (June! Not even July/August!) we had a heat wave. What would you expect to find in such an event? Maybe 34? That sounds pretty hot. 35? 36?! How hot can it get in a place that has never seen higher than 33C in 100 years?

Well, it hit 42 god damn degrees. If you told me I would ever see that, if I lived to be a thousand, I would not have believed it. Over 40C in a place where 30C is a hot day, where a year going by with zero days above 29C is the norm.

Yesterday hit 38. That would have been shocking last year. Today I was glad it was under 40.

But yeah nothing scary about a hot July. Right. No denial at all.

rgbrenner• 5 years ago

Cold records being broken are less frequent than in the past. Pretending that 1 cold record being broken disproves global warming is just the kind of disingenuous argument that deniers make.

Figures 1-4: https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indica...

https://www.climatesignals.org/data/record-high-temps-vs-rec...

https://www.axios.com/climate-change-warm-cold-temperature-r...

https://phys.org/news/2019-03-ap-hot-falling-cold.html

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-cold-weather.htm

rickspencer3• 5 years ago

Remember that global warming is not real. If it is real, then we don't know what is causing it. If we do know what is causing, it is not humans. If we do know it is humans causing it, then there is nothing we can do about it. If there is something we can do about it, it's not worth it, think of the jobs.

lmilcin13• 5 years ago

Think of the children.

Rock, paper, scissors, jobs, children. I beat you.

eli6• 5 years ago

"Humans didn't cause it so it's not our problem" has gotta be the weirdest take. No... it's definitely a problem either way.

josh_today• 5 years ago

I believe in climate change, the evidence is there when looking at the earth’s geographical shifts in time.

The question I pose to people which sometimes is misinterpreted is this: What will we do in order to survive climate change? All we hear is how to consume “greener” products.

Where’s the plan for major city relocation, new technologies, etc?

yongjik3• 5 years ago

You forgot: "It's too late anyway."

Bhilai• 5 years ago

You should check the WSJ editorials from a couple of days ago when IPCC report was released.

bjarneh• 5 years ago

Ten years prior to that the bad guys in "The naked gun" kidnapped and replaced a scientist to say it wasn't a problem.

frankfrankfrank• 5 years ago

I'm surprised this straw-man still exists. If there are any people that "believe global warming does not exist", it's an edge minority. All skeptics are clear that they believe global warming is happening.

The far bigger issue in addressing the global warming matter is actually people who seem incapable of having a rational and logical discussion and debate about things, and instead simply demand imposed obedience and blind trust in people who repeatedly and constantly on many different topics keep proving themselves untrustworthy and even malicious in intent. It is in fact also why we will end up in global conflict over not just this topic, but all other topics that will also be on the line when the dam breaks.

It is unfortunate that people, which you may or may not belong to, are so ideologically and fervently obsessed that they aren't actually talking about "global warming" at all, and what underpins their base assumptions are not only a deep rooted compulsion to hate their own, but also are driven by a need to dominate and subjugate others. It is akin to a psychological state in a turned/toxic relationship, where a deep and irrational resentment based on real or even just perceived slights and insults boils over into ever increasing hostility and often even also blind need to dominate or "win" even if it means self-harm and spiteful self-destruction. It is essentially a manic episode on a societal and civilizational level that we are going through, not just regarding "global warming" but on many different topics like gays, trans, immigration, freedom vs authoritarianism, etc.

They are all issues that are like in a toxic and unhealthy relationship where resentments have built up so badly (regardless of origin or legitimacy) that, no, e.g., she blows up over tiny things as a proxy for whatever the far bigger issue is.

anyfoo9• 5 years ago

Climate change does not care about ideology, psychology, or any of the issues you listed. It's a problem that affects literally everyone, and it needs solving.

decebalus1• 5 years ago

Some of the deniers I know personally told me their views shifted to 'there's nothing we can do now so the point is moot, enjoy it while you can, there's no point in doing anything environmentally friendly now'

spapas823• 5 years ago

About this, what was very puzzling to me was the opinions of the late Michael Chrichton. He was constantly expressing the opinion that the global warming was a frame up, both in his books but also to various talks. He had even written a book on which the bad guys were Greenpeace agents!

Now, considering how highly educated (not only he was a great author but he also had studied MD) and smart (this should be obvious to anybody that has read his books and watched over his career) he was, it means a lot to me that this person had these beliefs. Also the fact that he is not related to the field so he doesn't have anything to gain by believing and advocating these opinions makes the fact even more important.

As I said I am really puzzled about that. Does anybody has more information to shade a light on that?

matthewmcg• 5 years ago

Maybe I've spent too much time among lawyers, but I have noticed that there are some very smart people that seem to relish having certain unconventional beliefs. A critical, independent mind is a great thing, but the danger is when the view is held because it is unpopular and not because of any critical investigation of the evidence. Call it "anti-confirmation bias" if you want. Or to put it another way, some people just seem to enjoy smugly dismissing the obvious answer because it makes them feel smart!

lmilcin13• 5 years ago

For almost every issue you can find at least one highly educated person that thinks otherwise.

If you think something is "controversial" because one person thinks otherwise, we would never land at anything.

Look at their arguments and proofs. If you don't have time to examine those, look at their credentials and motivations.

Michael Chrichton was a writer and filmmaker. Not a climate resarcher.

panzagl5• 5 years ago

And yet the best solution science has been able to come up with in all that time is that we should not eat meat or drive a car. Maybe the population in general will take it seriously when they're told to do more than engage in Puritanical self-flagellation about the evils of Western society.

brtkdotse2• 5 years ago

Uh, no. Science has been _screaming_ for a carbon tax. Eat all the meat and drive all you want, but be prepared to pay up for the externalities that have been “free” so far.

odiroot• 5 years ago

I chuckled at your picking up that part out of this whole (really great) book.

The general story line about the terrorists trying to "deal" with the global warming is ahead of its time. Don't want to spoil it for anyone, but it's funny how the President wasn't the (most) ridiculous one there.

lmilcin13• 5 years ago

I chose this because that's exactly where I am in the book.

I am literally listening to it right now!

bena8• 5 years ago

Cosmos, both the book and the series, debuted in 1980. In it, Sagan warned of greenhouse effects

Al Gore was holding congressional hearings on climate change when he was first elected to Congress. In 1976. Environmental issues were the focus of his efforts during his Vice Presidency. From 1993 to 2001.

So. We're actually closer to 50 years.

It's not like we were not warned.

actually_a_dog7• 5 years ago

Try 1896: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...

the_reformation• 5 years ago

It's real, it's because of humans, it's not a civilization threat, and it probably isn't in the top 5 most important problems facing us this century.

m4x2• 5 years ago

OK, I'll bite. You really don't think it's a civilisation threat? It probably isn't an extinction threat (for humans at least) but certainly seems like it could topple modern civilisation. What do you consider the 5+ other more important problems?

baron_harkonnen2• 5 years ago

There is a very prevalent group of people on HN who don't deny that global warming is happening, but strongly deny that it is a serious problem.

This group deeply believes that technology will solve their problems, no matter how large. All that is required is believing in this strongly enough. There is a nearly rabid belief that everything will be fine because "technology" will find a way.

What these people fail to recognize is that technology is a function of energy. This comes across pretty clearly in Vaclav Smil's Energy and Civilization. Technology has felt magical in the last 250 years because we have had a tremendous amount of energy.

There is a very common myth, one I used to believe myself, that magically in the age of reason man woke up and started creating amazing things. I think everyone in tech has been at least someone seduced by this vision. The cover of SICP has a wizard on it!

What more accurately happened is that we started extracting fossil fuels, and that let to us being able to to magical things, including finding more fossil fuels faster. Even the earliest hunter gathers were able to harness fire and benefit from it. The first agrarian societies learned how to use the sun to build truly solar powered economies. We live in the age of fossil fuels, and as much as we wish it to be true, we are not able to build renewables on a scale and timeline to even begin to replace the magic of fossil fuels. In fact we continue to globally use more of every fossil fuel every year. Renewables are only able to supplement our insatiable hunger for energy.

So technology can't magically save us from our energy problems because energy is the magic that makes technology happen. But for many here such statements border on heresy.

feoren• 5 years ago

It's less that the argument is heretical, and more that it's based on some false premises.

First, it's possible to accept that climate change is a huge (and largely man-made) problem, and also believe technology will fix it.

Second, you're talking about a centuries-scale trend about the relationship between technology and energy, and we're talking about the technological breakthroughs that are possible in the next couple decades if we all work together on this important problem. While it may be true that energy begets technology, technology also begets technology.

Thirdly, you seem to be under-estimating how much energy we can actually get from the Sun with today's technology. We have the tech and economic output right now to completely supply our energy demand with the sun within 10-20 years via worldwide solar farms and a trans-continental grid (so the daytime side can provide for the nighttime side). Again, if the entire planet comes together to make that happen. The only thing we don't have is the will. Telling people "we're doomed, it's too late, we'll never have the technology because of this flimsy historical correlation, just lay down and die" harms the global will to fight the problem, rather than helps.

UnFleshedOne3• 5 years ago

There is also a major group that would be severely disappointed if technology did magically save us (say if 10 years to fusion was actually this decade), because it would deprave them of the possibility to solve other societal problems or push through reforms using climate change as a lever.

acdha• 5 years ago

Lots of people — a majority of Americans, even Republicans, believe it's real but that is far from universal and the percentages still mean millions of people:

https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/politics-... https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of...

The key thing to remember is there was a deliberate decision made around 40 years ago to try to delay actions, by the time companies like Exxon realized it was a real threat[1] — and that was far from the time the risk was first posited: here's someone in the 1920s saying it was probable:

https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn87055779/1918-09-1...

Part of that strategy was to turn it into a partisan issue and there are billion-dollar companies (Fox, Facebook, Google, etc.) helpfully providing communications platforms to ensure that message is constantly available in circles they believe might find a receptive audience. Note that I'm not saying their executives all share that view — only that it doesn't bother any of them enough to turn down the ads and engagement metrics.

Because that was successfully turned into a partisan issue, that means there are many millions of people who are faced with the choice of either admitting both that they were wrong and that this is because people whom they trusted were lying to them or continuing to hope that it won't impact them much and they can just continue to make no changes, which is quite correct given their average age and affluence.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2805576-1982-Exxon-M...

walleeee• 5 years ago

Plenty of comments in this thread claiming it's real but not that big a deal

Unreal

guymcgwire2• 5 years ago

I don't personally know any reasonably intelligent people who question the existence of global warming.

I do, however, know several highly intelligent people who have looked at the atmospheric carbon and temperature data and wonder (quietly, for obvious reasons) if we might have got the causal mechanism story wrong.

yongjik3• 5 years ago

https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-d...

CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases.

...

What is found is at no time in the last 10,000 years are the 13C/12C ratios in the atmosphere as low as they are today. Furthermore, the 13C/12C ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the CO2 starts to increase — around 1850 AD. This is exactly what we expect if the increased CO2 is in fact due to fossil fuel burning.

In other words, all CO2 with biological source (including fossil fuels) comes pre-tagged, and the pattern we see in the atmosphere exactly matches the assumption that they're from fossil fuels.

So, unless your acquaintances theorize that it's the global temperature that drives mankind's demand for fossil fuels, there's really no ground in doubting the causal direction.

It's too bad they're doubting quietly. If they actually voiced their doubts in the form of an honest question, they would have learned about C13 ratio by now.

SimeVidas• 5 years ago

What was the previous record?

lhorie8• 5 years ago

FTA:

the combined land and ocean-surface temperature was 1.67 degrees F (0.93 of a degree C) above the 20th-century average of 60.4 degrees F (15.8 degrees C), making it the hottest July since records began 142 years ago. It was 0.02 of a degree F (0.01 of a degree C) higher than the previous record set in July 2016, which was then tied in 2019 and 2020

black6• 5 years ago

What's the error on that measurement? I have a hard time believing that the +- on global mean temperature is less than 0.02 degF.

kersplody• 5 years ago

/s dupe, already submitted

nanis• 5 years ago

Around the globe: the combined land and ocean-surface temperature was 1.67 degrees F (0.93 of a degree C) above the 20th-century average of 60.4 degrees F (15.8 degrees C), making it the hottest July since records began 142 years ago.

If you are curious about where humans were measuring temperatures between 1880 and now, I put together an animation[1] of temperature station locations in GHCNv3 some time ago. With GHCNv4 out, it is due for an update, but still informative.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h95uvT67bNg

Rijek33• 5 years ago

Don't think science will save us this time lads

marcyb5st• 5 years ago

Agreed. We are already beyond the tipping point. Positive feedback loops already kicked in (thawing of Tundra, lower albedo due to glaciers melting, ...). We would need to go carbon negative right away and stay at those levels for years. Or go big about engineering the climate until we carbon levels return to normal levels.

noobly15• 5 years ago

Science is what got us here in the first place, is it not?

whall66• 5 years ago

Why is every other post on hacker news about climate change

AnimalMuppet• 5 years ago

Because it's of interest to hackers.

Why? Partly because it's a technical problem, and partly because we care about the environment, because that's where we live.

skeeter2020• 5 years ago

> Why? Partly because it's a technical problem

Once the deniers soften this is always their answer. The reality is nobody is prepared to sacrifice to the extent demanded, skeptics and alarmists alike.

jacquesm17• 5 years ago

Think of it as the next big thing. It is.

TremendousJudge3• 5 years ago

If global news were a TV show, covid was the prologue arc before the arc of the arrival of the Actual Big Bad

whall66• 5 years ago

Well, not yet it isn’t.

anyfoo9• 5 years ago

Because it's the most important problem to solve. Everything else won't matter if we don't solve this.

whall66• 5 years ago

Why won’t anything else matter?

melenaboija2• 5 years ago

Because its audience seems to be a bit worried that we will cook ourselves taking a look to some statistics, which therefore means (luckily in my opinion) the audience trust statistics

mattrighetti3• 5 years ago

Repeatedly showing stats won’t make things better or make people more aware of the problem, in the end people will still use their cars while they wait for others to make a change. Hypocrisy at its best, that’s what I see

threatofrain• 5 years ago

Parallel discussion.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28171200

lhorie8• 5 years ago

For the curious, here's a graph showing average temperatures year-over-year from various datasets[0]. Spoilers: yes, it's been going up.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_recor...

everdrive• 5 years ago

Don't worry, next July will be hotter.

blondie9x• 5 years ago

Lower population by encouraging smaller families and no limits on birth control. Lower consumption through minimalism and right to repair and loner lasting products. These policies must be implemented yesterday.

adam12• 5 years ago

The current administration has approved more than 2,000 new fracking permits.

I'm so glad the US has rejoined the Paris Agreement.

"Meet the new boss Same as the old boss"

cryptoz5• 5 years ago

I am very left, and despise Biden's refusal to address climate change where it counts, like fraking. But honestly, the new boss is not the same as the old boss, even with climate change. The new boss does in fact acknowledge it exists, rather than insisting that all climate change is a hoax and it is invented by China to hurt the US. Biden is not making the progress I'd like to see, but he is in no way as bad as the last guy.

vkou2• 5 years ago

I can't say I care very deeply about whether or not he's sympathetic and useless, or antagonistic and useless. The end result is the same.

Maybe the EU will one day get it's agenda together, and apply crippling tariffs to all goods and services imported from countries that don't have carbon taxes.

starik364• 5 years ago

This is nonsense. Whether someone virtue signals or not, actions are what's important, not words.

The CO2 emissions output has been coming down since the high in 2006. With the old boss and the new boss.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/183943/us-carbon-dioxide...

If anything, fracking helped the environment, since it offset resources being mined by the traditional, more wasteful methods.

testfoobar2• 5 years ago

Actions matter. Narratives are often used as palliatives. Demand real change.

kyrra• 5 years ago

And is asking for OPEC to produce more oil[0].

EDIT: updated the linked article. I originally linked to an opinion piece rather than a news piece.

[0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/white-house-urges-opec-to-boost...

old link: https://www.wsj.com/articles/joe-biden-wants-opec-to-drill-o...

testfoobar2• 5 years ago

No administration (L or R) wants to take the political hit. Everyone will burn more carbon.

swader9993• 5 years ago

After land-locking the supply to the most ethical producing nation to the north.

knownjorbist2• 5 years ago

Doing this is not mutually exclusive to taking action on climate. Fracking is what's really killing the coal industry.

The kind of reasoning you're using rings hollow when you actually look closer at what's going on politically:

https://www.slowboring.com/p/climate-left

$16 billion for capping orphaned wells and cleaning up abandoned mines.
$47.2 billion for climate resiliency projects.
$48.5 billion for public transit.
$66 billion for freight and passenger rail.
$15 billion for EV charging stations and electric buses.
$73 billion for upgrading the electricity grid.

TeeMassive• 5 years ago

The current administration has approved more than 2,000 new fracking permits.

Most fears about fracking are either myths or overblown.

Fracking has allowed the extraction of more natural gas; and natural has is the main reason that the US was able to reduce its emissions the past decade because it has a higher Joules/CO2 ratio.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTA-M12vrT4

I'm so glad the US has rejoined the Paris Agreement.

Any climate accords not involving the major C02 producers, especially China and India who produces more C02 than all of the rest of the developed world combined, will only outsource the problem to those countries with very poor to non-existent environmental regulations while we sabotage our economies my making them noncompetitive in the mean time.

whytaka• 5 years ago

Personally, I have lost hope. The ocean temperatures will continue rising, the ecosystem of micro-organisms that provide the majority of the planet's oxygen will collapse, the seasons will become completely undependable for agriculture, the massive reservoirs of methane under permafrost will explode into the atmosphere, forests around the world will burn, and the reservoirs of potable water will dry up.

My cynical belief is that amongst conservative leadership, there is already consensus that climate change will take place. The anti-immigrant agenda is advanced preparation to repel the imminent hordes of climate refugees out of Fortress America.

edgyquant7• 5 years ago

ecosystem of micro-organisms that provide the majority of the planet's oxygen will collapse,

Citation needed. This is the doomsaying that people see, then see legit science doesn’t suggest this, and assume it’s all as real as the book of revelations. We need to spread real information not act like the world will legitimately end because the temperature goes up to what it was 3 million years ago.

dleslie6• 5 years ago

I think they might be referring to phytoplankton. Their shells are dependent on the ocean being amenable to their development, and it's becoming less so, already causing growing pockets of oxygen-poor ocean waters.[0][1] They happen to be responsible for about half our oxygen, or more.[2]

0: https://psmag.com/environment/global-warming-is-putting-phyt...

1: https://news.mit.edu/2015/ocean-acidification-phytoplankton-...

2: https://newportbay.org/ask-a-naturalist-do-phytoplankton-pro...

ripper1138• 5 years ago

Read up on some real science and geography. Earth has been much warmer in the past and there was still plenty of oxygen. warmer also means wetter (in general). Local climates may change quickly but there will still going to be plenty of water, oxygen, and life.

kaesar14• 5 years ago

The coolest July for the rest of our lives.

boplicity3• 5 years ago

If you want to see a very realistic, depressing, and ever-so-slightly hopefully depiction of the possible near-future, read The Ministry for the Future by Kim Stanley Robinson.

ajdegol• 5 years ago

That started out very powerfully, but the author tried to cram way too many disparate things in there. It lost a lot of steam halfway through; god knows why it turned into a love story. What was the point? All that stuff with crypto? The cryptic poem type things interspersed. It was a good effort and started off amazing; shame about the lack of focus.

tzs3• 5 years ago

That will extend the streak to 439 consecutive months with global surface temperature above the 20th century average.

polote4• 5 years ago

Ok global warming is happening we know it for a long time.

But is there a place somewhere that explain how could the world works without emitting too much co2, or any gaz which are problematic. How do we replace cars ? trucks ? how many people on earth is possible ? Can we have plane ? Boat ? How do we produce clothes, how do we have electricity at night ...

I'm not asking to have a plan for everything, because this is not possible. But a complete description of important areas of life

syops7• 5 years ago

As I see things the only solution is that humans need to stop reproducing so much. There are far too many people for the resources of the planet given current technology.

mattrighetti3• 5 years ago

How do you back that statement?

kmlx• 5 years ago

this is a myth from the 1970s. it has been debunked countless times (even by history itself), but people still fall back to this.

pyrale2• 5 years ago

This kind of discourse is simply disregarding facts to promote a not-my-problem ideology.

The countries that contribute most significantly to greenhouse gas emissions almost always have very low demography. Because of that, if we were to change demography to reach strict population equilibrium in every country without changing countries' emissions per capita, we would actually emit more greenhouse gases.

pptr• 5 years ago

I thought Bill Gates' recent book covered all the important problems and how they could be addressed. Here is a good summary: https://www.gatesnotes.com/Energy/Lowering-Green-Premiums

ptkd7• 5 years ago

high level there's a two pronged path:

* Clean electricity generation (solar, wind, hydro with some sort of grid storage/distribution mechanism to handle when sun isn't shining/wind isn't blowing) and

* Electrification (EVs, non-gas heating)

Can we have planes

Yes, at some point. Electric planes are being explored but have difficulties with battery weight. Another possibility is green hydrogen or perhaps some other yet-undiscovered energy source. Planes account for a relatively low percentage of global emissions (maybe 2% right now?) so this is not a priority

Boats?

Yes -- electric pleasure crafts exist already. For long haul/shipping I'm not totally sure what's being worked on, but it certainly will be possible

Clothing

Another space I'm not super familiar with. Again, it's important to remember that we need to focus on the heavy hitters, which currently are dirty electricity production (ie coal plants) and transportation (gas-powered cars)

polote4• 5 years ago

So basically you say, let's replace most of the energy sources by solar, wind and hydro. And use battery every time we need to get off the grid.

As for storage for the grid, are we actually confident that we can transfer that quantity of energy between countries ? Because if everything becomes electricity powered. That means a lot of power over long distance.

Do we know if there are enough natural resources to produce that amount of lithium batteries also ?

marcosdumay• 5 years ago

Right now?

Invest on lowering the price of solar and increasing panel production;

Invest on lowering the price of batteries (I'm not sure ramping-up production is wise right now);

Invest on nuclear power on the (very few) places it can be ramped-up quickly, and stop taking offline the reactors that have no extraneous safety problems;

Invest on electrifying transportation (that's mostly by replacing trucks, buses and cars, but if it's viable to replace things by trains, that's a double gain, I would ignore planes for the time being);

Invest on lowering the costs of carbon capture (I would focus on atmospheric capture for chemical usage, but any kind could be great);

If you live in a place without them, press for carbon taxes, the government can use the money to pay for the things above or distribute it to the poor. It's easier to get if you make it mildly protectionist, but that has the side effect of impoverishing your local economy (politics is weird).

You personally can not do much, unless you have a lot of money. But any reasonably rich government can do a lot of change (it doesn't even to be at the national level).

sampo2• 5 years ago

But is there a place somewhere that explain how could the world works without emitting too much co2, or any gaz which are problematic.

Per capita per year CO2 emissions, in tonnes:

    US     16.06
    China   7.1
    EU-27   6.56
    France  4.97
    World   4.72
    Sweden  4.26
    India   1.91

Maybe the answer is somewhere between Sweden and India.

Crash0v3rid3• 5 years ago

We are far beyond being able to fix this by just reducing our emissions.

We need to focus on innovations focused on extracting CO2 directly from our atmospheres at scale.

An interesting read on the topic: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-05/bill-gate...

ttul• 5 years ago

Carbon Engineering [1] seems to be making good progress toward this goal. They even published a paper about their process and its economics in Cell [2].

"We describe a process for capturing CO2 from the atmosphere in an industrial plant. The design captures ∼1 Mt-CO2/year in a continuous process using an aqueous KOH sorbent coupled to a calcium caustic recovery loop. We describe the design rationale, summarize performance of the major unit operations, and provide a capital cost breakdown developed with an independent consulting engineering firm. We report results from a pilot plant that provides data on performance of the major unit operations. We summarize the energy and material balance computed using an Aspen process simulation. When CO2 is delivered at 15 MPa, the design requires either 8.81 GJ of natural gas, or 5.25 GJ of gas and 366 kWhr of electricity, per ton of CO2 captured. Depending on financial assumptions, energy costs, and the specific choice of inputs and outputs, the levelized cost per ton CO2 captured from the atmosphere ranges from 94 to 232 $/t-CO2."

[1] https://carbonengineering.com/ [2] https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(18)30225-3

sampo2• 5 years ago

They even published a paper about their process and its economics in Cell [2].

The journal is Joule.

https://www.cell.com/joule/aims

titzer7• 5 years ago

Whoa, gasoline produces 20 pounds of CO2 per gallon burned. So 100 gallons per ton of CO2. At $2/gallon, that's $200/t to produce. And then we have to spend potentially more than that to clean up the pollution. Planetarily, we iz a stupid.

But for the record, I absolutely don't believe it's that cheap to take CO2 out of the air at scale. So this whole thing is a pipedream.

boplicity3• 5 years ago

If I'm doing my (very bad) math right, I think that works out to around a max of 60 cents per liter of gas, if you want to offset it with direct carbon capture using this method. That's not completely insane.

However, How many plants (and at what cost for building these plants), would there need to be, in order to make a meaningful difference? For example, would a $100 billion dollar investment over the next five years make a meaningful impact?

ptkd7• 5 years ago

It's not either or, we need both. It will never be more efficient to pull CO2 from the atmosphere then it is to just prevent it from getting there in the first place, so cutting emissions is still the bottleneck

alanbernstein• 5 years ago

Might be more "politically efficient" to extract it though.

olivermarks3• 5 years ago

The NOAA currently hosts over over 37 petabytes of 'comprehensive atmospheric, coastal, oceanic, and geophysical data' and was established in October 1970.

It sometimes seems the more data we have the more gloom and doom we get. I'm not one to use emotional quasi religious terms like 'denier' but that does give pause for thought.

The NOAA started out Surveying the US coastline in 1807 as the 'U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey' to provide nautical charts to the maritime community for safe passage into American ports. It's morphed like all giant government bureaucracies into well over 11k people now apparently surveying the entire planet and collecting vast troves of data.

https://www.oftwominds.com/blogdec10/lifecycle-bureaucracy12...

syops7• 5 years ago

Why does it give you pause for thought? Isn’t the mostly likely conclusion is that the reason more data is leading to more gloom and doom is because we are in a gloom and doom situation?

tstrimple• 5 years ago

It sometimes seems the more data we have the more gloom and doom we get.

Ignorance really is bliss isn't it?

olivermarks3• 5 years ago

Well to be contrarian: lies, damn lies and statistics...the scholarly arguments about the extent to which man is influencing our climate and the extent to which natural cycles and space weather are far more important is essentially a data war. Both sides have a plethora of data and statistics to make their case.

I do wonder and worry about the damage this 'you did it' alarmism is very negatively affecting the human psyche, causing substance abuse, depression, suicides etc.

https://youtu.be/2ObjtVdsV3I

anyfoo9• 5 years ago

Isn't more data good, giving more confidence? If more data paints a bleaker and bleaker picture, aren't things bleak?

pizza• 5 years ago

Maybe what you fear, in this case, is actually real

unnouinceput• 5 years ago

Then the next hottest month will be Dec or Jan because summer in Southern Hemisphere is hotter than the one in Northern one of the same year.

Izikiel43• 5 years ago

So far.

Koshkin2• 5 years ago

From Wikipedia:

The climate of the Jurassic was generally warmer than that of present, by around 5 °C to 10 °C, with atmospheric carbon dioxide likely four times higher. Forests likely grew near the poles...

JoeAltmaier• 5 years ago

...and mammals were all 3" or smaller. Not a world we'd want to live in.

ProAm• 5 years ago

Speak for yourself.

notdang• 5 years ago

who said that the planet needs the mammals?

Koshkin2• 5 years ago

To be fair, mammals just appeared around that time, so no wonder.

anyfoo9• 5 years ago

That's great for whatever ecosystem succeeds us, not so great for us, our children, and their children.

bjoli4• 5 years ago

Now go read about the Triassic-jurassic extinction event, because the process of reaching those 5-10 degrees is the scary part.

CyanBird3• 5 years ago

Yep, yep

Wherever happens the planet will continue, same can't be said for modern human civilization on said new climatic landscape, wheat, corn, and other plants staple foods just didn't exist back then and heck knows if we'd be able to keep cultivating them with such different weather patterns and co2 amounts

I believe tho, that rsther than you quoting the jurassic, you ought quote the Permian triassic event, that's certainly more apt for how abrupt current atmospheric changes are

flowerlad2• 5 years ago

Reducing carbon emissions is no longer enough. Carbon removal is the only hope.

YC is funding startups in this space: http://carbon.ycombinator.com/

xwdv2• 5 years ago

Carbon removal is not possible in sufficient magnitude to make a difference, sorry.

ptkd7• 5 years ago

source on this? The most important thing right now is definitely reducing emissions, but carbon capture certainly has a significant role to play

matheusd• 5 years ago

Are there any publicly-traded companies/etfs/funds/prediction markets/whatever that a retail investor can invest in if they believe that carbon removal technology will play a significant role in the future?

throwitaway1235• 5 years ago

What year does NOAA choose as the beginning for "record"? It's relevant to the discussion.

Earth is 4.5 billion years old.

Humans have existed for 200,000 years.

This all comes off as political or quasi-religious because I can assure you that the author knows average people will read that headline and assume "begining of time". Hence I call bullshit.

cochne• 5 years ago

Probably since humans started recording? Doesn’t seem that misleading to me.

knownjorbist2• 5 years ago

What matters is the climate equilibrium that we and the ecosystems we depend on evolved under. Most of Earth's history would be totally uninhabitable for humans ourselves, nevermind those ecosystems. Using the argument of the total time that Earth has existed or previous climate fluctuations totally misses the point.

It doesn't matter what happened millennia ago, what matters is how rapidly things are changing now.

timeon• 5 years ago

Technically true but not really relevant.

lucky_cloud• 5 years ago

You read the headline yourself and went off asking a dumb question that's answered in the article.

'On record' implies 'since we started keeping records' and that length of time is specifically stated in the article.

The headline isn't "July was Earth’s hottest month ever" - that's the clickbait headline that would justify your reaction.

polotics3• 5 years ago

I call bullshit on your half baked retort. How is the short precarious lives of the very few early humans relevant to greenhouse earth 2021?

SquibblesRedux• 5 years ago

Assuming the climate continues to change rapidly, which I presume it will, what efforts have been made (in any country) to deal with it? I have seen much about attempting to prevent climate change, but very little planning about how to deal with its consequences.

We can and should continue to discuss and explore our options for sustainable civilization, but at some point we need to start mitigating the risks for calamitous outcomes.

It feels a little like we are living at the base of volcano, debating about the best way to prevent the volcano from erupting.

qqtt• 5 years ago

On record meaning 142 years of history. Sometimes people conflate "on record" with "ever since humans were around" but on a species scale 142 years is basically no history at all.

Not to say that climate change isn't a very serious issue, but we will likely have to live with the realities of where we are headed, and life has adapted in the past to much larger swings of temperature.

ajross5• 5 years ago

"Life" will adapt. Ecosystems won't. It really sounds like you're expressing your feelings about a likely mass extinction event as "shit happens, what're you gonna do?"

xwdv2• 5 years ago

Ecosystems are just a large collection of “Life”.

splittingTimes• 5 years ago

Yes it has adapted to larger temp swings, but these other swings occurred over 10ks or 100ks of years, not 0.15k years. Life cannot adapt over the span of single or low double digit generations.

k33n• 5 years ago

Broke the record by a whopping 0.02 degrees. Time to stop eating hamburgers!

frhack• 5 years ago

I suspect that global warming is growing at an exponential rate. It would surprise me if it weren't so. Every effect of global warming contributes to fueling it. If it is indeed exponential growth, expect the effects to double over the doubling time, probably in the order of years.

csense2• 5 years ago

Shouldn't climate change have both negative and positive effects?

For example, people don't want to live in the Rust Belt because the winters are too cold. Could the region's economic viability increase if winters get milder?

In some places, climate change makes things worse for growing crops, makes people need to move out, or increases the probability of disasters. Everyone is talking about this.

In other places, climate change should be making things better for growing crops, making people want to move in, or decreasing the probability of disasters. Why is no one talking about this?

What's up with the asymmetry?

Edit: Wow this got downvoted fast. I was hoping to get meaningful answers to a genuine question from knowledgeable people with minimum political agenda, but apparently the HN crowd isn't good at dealing with even slightly contrarian takes on this issue.

boplicity3• 5 years ago

If the ocean temperature gets warm enough, it's hard to say what the climate will be in the rust belt. Basically, the natural circulation of water that cycles cold and warm water might stop -- leaving some places extremely cold.

The "AMOC" might stop, in other words. Maybe not? Let's hope. But is it worth the risk of pushing things so far that we might just find out?

fr2null• 5 years ago

I'm not even anything close to a climate expert, but I can imagine that this is because most of the world lives in places that are livable in our current climate.

Most of us don't live in Siberia or Greenland. Sure these places might become great because of climate change, but it doesn't matter, since barely anyone lives there.

In the places were we do live, the temperatures are already (semi) ok, meaning that increasing these temperatures will bother more people than it will help.

Furthermore, most people live close to water, which means a rising sea level will be bad for them. Maybe (probably not, but just imagine that) after the sea level has risen we have more viable land that is close to water. However, at that point all the current cities have been ruined by it, because they were built for the old water levels.

hh3k0• 5 years ago

In other places, climate change should be making things better for growing crops, making people want to move in, or decreasing the probability of disasters. Why is no one talking about this?

"Billions of Acres of Cropland Lie Within a New Frontier. So Do 100 Years of Carbon Emissions: Crops grown on this land could feed a growing population. But if these soils are plowed, they could unleash as much carbon as the U.S. emits in more than a century." https://insideclimatenews.org/news/12022020/agricultural-fro...

noobly15• 5 years ago

It takes life a little bit to react to these changes though, e.g plants dying and ocean life being killed off. There's a risk of cascading effects from plant/animal network collapse. I have heard people building off of your idea though and speculating that Northern areas like Russia may be valuable in the next century as new farming land.

And I don't think people should be able to downvote a question without answering, or upvoting a response that addresses some criticism, I agree it sucks.

starlust2• 5 years ago

If the earth warms enough we could enter a period of permanent world wide drought. When temperatures are too hot, clouds can no longer form. No clouds means no rain and even hotter temperatures.

Some areas may become more livable, but we're talking the extreme northern reaches of Canada.

ptkd7• 5 years ago

Okay, I will give you a genuine answer: it will have almost unequivocally negative effects.

First, I'll address your asymmetry comment, with a couple of example points.

crops

This is a common misunderstanding I see. Crops aren't solely viable because of climate -- a large portion of crop-viability is due to soil quality, which is built up over many many years. As areas that have traditionally been extremely cold become potentially more viable, crops are much less effective because the soil has not historically had a lot of fertilizer-producing flora/fauna.

decreasing the probability of disasters

As far as I understand climate change, this is not expected anywhere. A disaster can be considered an event that goes dramatically against the norm. For example, flooding [extreme rain], drought [extreme lack of rain], fires [extreme heat], crop freezes/cold snaps [extreme cold]. Climate change essentially results in increasingly extreme deviations from the norm, so "disasters" go up. There's nowhere in the world I'm aware of that is going to get more consistent from climate change.

make people want to move in

Even if climate were a zero sum game, and some places got better while others got worse, forcing everyone to move would be pretty awful. Further -- it's not a zero sum game, as mentioned in my last point.

The final point I'll make around climate change is that it's very likely to lead to geopolitical instability. As some areas become unlivable, famines, wars and refugees become more and more frequent.

csense2• 5 years ago

Crops aren't solely viable because of climate -- a large portion of crop-viability is due to soil quality, which is built up over many many years.

I live in a rather less urban area than most HN readers, but I actually don't know all that much about farming.

I'm fascinated about some of the implications of your comments.

Having seen potting soil and fertilizer for sale in greenhouses and garden centers, I've always assumed soil fertility is a portable, manufacturable commodity. That is, if you want to start a farm in a place with the correct climate but unsuitable soil, you can simply buy healthy soil from somewhere else to get started, and then after a while your crops will establish themselves and create a somewhat self-sustaining ecosystem on your fields that only requires input of sunlight, water and nutrients that are commodity chemicals (nitrates and phosphates that can be mined or chemically manufactured).

Where does the bought soil come from? Established farms. Presumably crops have some capability to create soil from barren earth over time, so you can safely harvest and export 5% of your soil a year, or something. Or you can use dedicated compost piles which produce soil from crop / livestock waste. Perhaps occasionally importing rocky / sandy / clay soil to replenish the base mass.

You seem to disagree with this view; your comment instead implies that soil fertility is more fixed, not fungible. I find this interesting, and want to learn more.

Dig1t• 5 years ago

Why are geoengineering efforts not more popular? I thought that what Bill Gates and co were doing with the chalk dust in the atmosphere was a good idea. I think there are myriad ideas along these lines that would go a long way towards combating climate change while also not killing a large swath of economic activity.

linuxhansl2• 5 years ago

Imagine an asteroid would be on trajectory to collide with earth in (say) 2025.

Possible order of hypothetical events:

1. Scientist discover the asteroid. Calculate risk of collision.

2. Asteroid comes closer, probability of impact is calculated as high.

3. People will start saying that we cannot let our economy be controlled by the specter of an asteroid.

4. The asteroid becomes visible. You can see it with your bare eyes.

5. Still people start claiming it's fake news: The scientists are lying, it's a great conspiracy, it's all just to control us all.

6. Destroying or diverting the asteroid is estimated to be so expensive that it will change our way of life.

7. Anti-Asteroid-Action demonstrations would start all over the planet, to protest any expensive actions against the asteroid.

8. News outlets will be asked to be keep the bias out of their reporting, because they would support "asteroid believers".

9. Countries will create treaties to stop the impact by 2030, or perhaps delay it to 2040.

10. Scientists report new data. Impact is certain. Models about consequences are increasingly accurate and dire.

11. These scientists are labeled as alarmists.

12. The rich countries refuse to take the financial burden, because they feel it's unfair.

13. Impact is now a few weeks away. Nothing happened. Nobody did anything.

Update: Layout and spelling.

UncleOxidant3• 5 years ago

Given the experience of the last couple of years, I think this would be a very plausible scenario. And we'd deserve to go extinct like the dinosaurs did.

bishnu• 5 years ago

I believe this is the premise of an upcoming Netflix movie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_Look_Up_(2021_film)

linuxhansl2• 5 years ago

Cool. I'll watch that one!

(Case in point that everything I have ever thought of has been thought of already by someone else. :) )

przeor• 5 years ago

you can start writing your book

gambiting• 5 years ago

Honestly, given our track record I don't understand how we've actually managed to ban fluorocarbons globally.

ls612• 5 years ago

Because unlike the cost of mitigating climate change (or covid for that matter) the global cost of switching to other chemicals was very small, on the order of single digit billions of dollars. It turns out most people don’t want to radically upend their lives for the benefit of others who knew?

randomdata• 5 years ago

Good marketing likely helped.

A hole in the ozone layer? We had better patch it at once!

Global warming? I never liked winter much anyway.

jacquesm17• 5 years ago

Because it was a very small problem compared to this one. On the order of a broken leg versus having to cure cancer.

ip26• 5 years ago

The conspiratorial explanation is that freon was cheap to make & not patented, while new more atmosphere friendly replacements were patented. The new refrigerants were also fairly drop-in.

gremloni• 5 years ago

That was a decade ago when there was no real way for the loony opposition to come together.

ndesaulniers• 5 years ago

Is this a pitch for a script for Idiocracy 2: Electric Bugaloo?

yvdriess• 5 years ago

Yes, but this time they don't need time travel.

anoplus• 5 years ago

Human beings are so bad at responding to intangible threats. The worried minority have no choice but to take the unpleasant role of waking up the others

briantakita• 5 years ago

Replace an Asteroid with a weakening Geomagnetic field due to a Geomagnetic Excursion. Geomagnetic excursions are correlated with mass extinction in the Paleotological record. This makes sense since the Geomagnetic field shields Earth from space weather & a weakened Geomagnetic field means less protection from space weather.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018RG00...

Uh oh, we are currently going through a Geomagnetic Excursion. Why are we not doing anything about it? Why is the population at large not alerted?

https://www.sciencealert.com/new-study-shows-that-earth-s-ma...

rekwah• 5 years ago

This makes me of Melancholia[0] although the outcome may or may not be different (#nospoilers)

[0]https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1527186/

polote4• 5 years ago

I doubt something like that can happen actually.

Global warming is less obvious risk than an asteroid and still today most of the big economies start transitioning to greener energy. Not at a fast pace, but still a lot of work is being done.

It doesn't mean enough effort is being done to not destroy humankind but there are things happening

Tarsul2• 5 years ago

the asteroid doesn't necessarily destroy the whole population of the earth.. just like climate change probably won't kill everyone.

cthaeh• 5 years ago

Disclaimer, I'm all for stopping climate change and think it's the biggest issue facing our generation.

But nothing indicates non runaway climate change is an existential level event for humanity. Nothing.

By comparing it to asteroids, and then 10, 20, 30 years in the future, when what happens is nowhere near to the complete eradication of all humans on earth that you are predicting with this comparison, why are you surprised that people don't take activists and scientists seriously.

Stop with the hyperbole. Stick with the facts and only the facts and you may notice that we will have more support then ever in the fight against climate change.

turing_complete• 5 years ago

Why is this comment being downvoted? Valid point.

LargoLasskhyfv5• 5 years ago

What about the fact that Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2? And with climbing average temperatures more and more of it will be released all over the Arctic due to thawing permafrost. Where 'Arctic' means Sibira, Alaska, Canada, not only north-pole.

Some say this is a feedback loop.

For some others this is an abstraction which has no concrete meaning.

Why?

Haven't you ever experienced an acoustic feedback loop, where the setup began to screech and howl because the microphone amplification was too strong and/or the speakers too loud?

I think now is the time where we begin to hear the first upswings of that, and it will get louder and louder.

Deafening.

Until we pull the plug.

Considering the inertia of the systems involved it's already too late.

So our plug will be pulled instead, sooner or later.

Except by sucking all that shit out of the air with excess electricty by whichever means, and turning it into something which makes it stay out of the air.

That may make it bearable, maybe.

Tarsul2• 5 years ago

I laughed out loud when I read that in the end the result was layout and spelling :)

crisis averted!

throwayaaaa• 5 years ago

Nobody wants to solve the technological problem of pulling carbon from the air.

Carbon sequestration consumes more power than bitcoin mining ?

slg• 5 years ago

The difference is that an asteroid is an existential threat to humanity while climate change is just short of that. The rich and powerful are always going to be protected from experiencing the worst aspects of climate change.

They won't be the ones working outside when the air quality is dangerous from wildfires. They aren't going to be the ones who can't sleep because it is 90 degrees in their home. They won't be stuck in the path of a hurricane without anywhere to evacuate to. They won't be the ones who are left homeless and penniless due to a flood. They won't be the ones who can no longer afford the high prices of food or water. They won't be the ones fighting in wars over dwindling resources. Short of those future resource wars going nuclear, they don't really have to fear climate change the same way the rest of us do.

And if their primary fear of climate change is decreased wealth, it isn't a surprise why that wouldn't be enough for them to sacrifice their current wealth.

Diederich• 5 years ago

The difference is that an asteroid is an existential threat to humanity while climate change is just short of that.

This is a valid point.

To clarify, though, I don't think climate change is likely to make humans extinct, but I believe it has a non-trivial chance of destroying our civilization.

If/when the climate gets really bad, human irrationality will go into overdrive, and we'll be a massive danger to ourselves.

noobly15• 5 years ago

The difference is that an asteroid is an existential threat to humanity while climate change is just short of that.

And you can see an asteroid heading straight for you, anyone skeptical could just get, or borrow, a scope. I don't think an asteroid collision would induce a politicized disinfo campaign personally, it's too concrete.

Bombthecat3• 5 years ago

We will hit 4 plus in fifty years. They will be affected, no matter where they live or how rich they will be.

jacquesm17• 5 years ago

We're at 13, on a slightly longer timescale.

flowerlad2• 5 years ago

Actually there won't be any problem getting support for dealing with the asteroid. Asteroid collision is easy to understand, even for uneducated people.

Political support depends on average people understanding the cause, and not needing to change behavior too much. Asteroid collision satisfies both requirements, but climate change satisfies neither.

throwawaysea• 5 years ago

Climate change is not an existential threat, although it is a serious problem. I suspect that while millions or even hundreds of millions may be impacted, the majority of humans will survive and adapt to it. A reduction in the population, even if forced upon us without choice, would help correct the problem. There is much debate about which humans exactly are impacted (the poor in third-world low-lying countries?) or if the ones causing the most impact will be the ones killed (from rich Western countries?), but there is some population threshold beyond which our per capita consumption levels and high standard lifestyles will come into balance with the realities of climate and the environments around us. This is different from facing a large asteroid, where one such impact can literally end all terrestrial animal life on the planet on a much shorter time scale.

More on the notion that climate change is not an existential threat here, from a Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Washington: https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2019/08/is-global-warming-exi...

foobiekr• 5 years ago

The challenge with this analogy is that the rich countries could unilaterally solve this asteroid problem. If that was true for global warming, I think we might have a chance, but not only isn't it true, the rich countries don't even _matter_ at this point.

(Yes, they matter _per capita_ but that's a fairness discussion not a capability discussion.)

jokoon• 5 years ago

I don't like this analogy.

You can show a picture of an asteroid, but you can't really explain the greenhouse effect to consumers and voters.

It's easy to take action against an asteroid, but fighting CO2 emissions is far trickier.

jrslv• 5 years ago

I believe you could explain greenhouse effect to consumers and voters. The basics are elementary/highschool physics and chemistry. And there are useful analogies too. The issue is that schools in too many countries don't seem to try to explain mechanisms of climate change to pupils.

It's easy to take action against an asteroid, but fighting CO2 emissions is far trickier.

Really?

mehal• 5 years ago

Can we please stop recording … so it would cool again?!

throwaway483284• 5 years ago

Around 10 years ago when I was telling everyone what will happen soon (floods, wild fires, heat waves etc) people looked at me like I'm some kind of lunatic. These days the same people ask me what I think about the future. Few years ago I believed we can still win with climate change but now I'm certain that we will not. Problem is in the fundamentals of our current economic model that is based on infinite growth, which keeps society stable. General population social hierarchy of values is also a huge obstacle, what's going on Instagram is a huge indicator of that. Most people care but not enough to justify lifestyle change. I was very unhappy and worried a lot about what future will bring and that we are not doing enough to stop it, but now I'm relieved and happy, because I've accepted that this will happen either way and I can't do anything about it more than what I'm doing already. This will be controversial advice on HN but here it goes.. if you are miserable because of climate change and you constantly fear of future just let it go, you can't control the future. Not everyone needs to be a hero, live you life, spend time with your love ones, do what makes you happy, be kind to others, try to not consume too much so you don't contribute to climate change and plan accordingly.

newman555• 5 years ago

I tried that (accept and move on), but when you have kids...I find it impossible. I can’t accept that fate for them. How do you reason about that?

Guid_NewGuid• 5 years ago

Agree and don't really see why this is an unpopular view.

I am about to hit 30 and I've never had an opportunity to vote for a winning government. I have been powerless to do anything other than basically pointless personal responsibility actions for my whole goddamn life. Sure I've gone vegetarian and bought green energy, I don't drive and try to avoid flying but it doesn't make any difference.

So given we live in democracies where the majority of voters will block any kind of progressive action (or authoritarian regimes) how do you cope mentally? And effectively stoicism is the only course. Don't take liberties with the environment in your personal life and support and promote solutions at a social and fiscal level. But you can't change any of this shit. The next generation is going to blame my generation and that's completely fair but there's nothing I could have realistically done.

Acceptance is important to stop the despair, feelings of doom and self hate. It isn't the same as denial.

generalizations2• 5 years ago

For those who are interested in the historical data, 'Paleoclimatology' has been a fascinating deep dive into what seems like very decent long-term data.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Paleoclimatology/...

adam_arthur6• 5 years ago

Any policy should be evaluated on the basis of costs and benefits. Too much of the conversation on global warming is either broadly dismissive or exasperatingly alarmist.

Fundamentally policy changes to curb global warming will have economic consequence, those of which will be borne disproportionately by the poor. E.g. efforts to curb oil and coal extraction will naturally result in the price of energy going up.

I can tell you it makes no difference to me if gas is 3 or 4 dollars a gallon, but it matters a lot to those who live paycheck to paycheck. And especially to those impoverished and living in emerging markets.

Im not suggesting a specific policy course of action (at least in this comment), but we'd be a lot better off if there was more of an effort to quantify impact of action/inaction using real numbers.

Temperature is projected to be X by year Y (we have varying projections of this), and the cost to humanity is Z.

What level of economic sacrifice is justified to address this and how much should we frontload that effort?

Should the poor bear the largest burden, or should we normalize the cost somehow? (Energy subsidy, remittances to emerging economies to use cleaner energy)

I have no doubt people have run these numbers, but I don't see the connection being made to specific policy proposals.

jdavis7032• 5 years ago

This is a fairly western centric view of “the poor.” The poor in the global south are absolutely going to be disproportionately impacted by climate change. If anything it’s the rich who are least impacted by global warming. The rich can afford to buy AC, move to areas that aren’t at risk of fires and floods and famines won’t cause us to go hungry.

adam_arthur6• 5 years ago

You say disproportionately impacted. Can you quantify that? That's exactly the hand-wavey language we should avoid.

Water level rises by how many feet, displaces how many people? What is the cost of the coastal real estate lost? It can all be quantified (within range).

You'd probably find that for poor areas it's quite cost effective for people to relocate. New York City going underwater is much harder to replace. Obviously due to the level of cost to replicate the construction.

You say famine... Why would climate change bring famine? Farming and arable land would just shift to more cost effective areas. Some arable land is lost, others is gained (cold areas becoming warm). Building logistics to transport food to localities that can't support it locally is a good idea, and easy to achieve. That's the power of trade.

I don't dismiss the reality or impact of climate change at all, but look at the responses I get. Just people taking hyperbolically without really getting into the details that matter. Or lacking convincing and detailed statements. It's all hand-wavey and vague generalities about flooding or fires.

rrrrrrrrrrrryan2• 5 years ago

Like many pigouvian taxes, most carbon tax proposals make an attempt to offset its regressiveness by distributing some sort of dividend or rebate.

The idea isn't to punish the poor for driving to work. Rather, it's an attempt to charge the major carbon-emitters for their pollution of the commons (the atmosphere), then compensate the public with that money.

adam_arthur6• 5 years ago

If there's a direct redistribution of sorts, then the poor can be protected from costs.

But any policy without an explicit redistribution scheme will raise the cost of business, and thus, raise the cost to consumers (as businesses pass these on).

e.g. for demonstration, imagine you sell apples for a 10 cent profit. Government enacts a 10 cent tax on apples. Now you must raise your price to consumers by at least 10 cents to stay in business. Consumer feels the effect of the tax

Market based solutions are still best, though.

Ma8ee4• 5 years ago

I’m sorry, but what kind of hole (or bubble, to use a more popular term) have you been living in the last decade? There are a studies like the one you are requesting coming out regularly. Unfortunately, they can’t tell you exactly how many dollars different policies will cost, but that is due to the nature of the subject, not because of any faults of the studies.

But the conclusions are unanimous: it’s going to cost much more to do something today than it would have cost yesterday, and it’s going to be much more expensive tomorrow. The poor are the ones that will be hardest hit, not because they can’t afford AC, but because its their food that won’t grow when there’s no rain or too much rain, and they can’t move.

Science is currently speaking loud and clear: do much more than is currently planned, or we are facing centuries of wildfires, floods, storms, food and water shortages and hundreds of millions of refugees trying to find new futures.

And this is not alarmist. This is what climate scientists, like Cassandras, have been shouting about for decades.

I’ve met a few like you, who think they represent the voice of balance and reason. But you are the ones that still are haggling over the price of buckets while the fire breaks through the roof of the orphanage.

adam_arthur6• 5 years ago

Exactly the hand-wavey and vague language I describe. Nowhere do you quantify the cost of this.

Saying there will be floods or wildfires is not meaningful discussion. We've had those throughout all of recorded history. How much worse will those things get? What is the economic cost?

Just saying climate change is bad because X, Y, Z danger and not quantifying the actual impact with numbers is simply a discussion of hysterics.

There's an endless list of bad things in the world, and logically we should address them from most impactful to least impactful. So where is the math justifying policy X with economic cost Y?

And as I said in my comment, yes studies have been done. Where is that in political discourse? To the average American, addressing climate change will have effectively no impact on their livelihood within their lifetime. Economic consequences will have an immediate impact. That's simply a fact.

Will it get hotter by a few degrees with some knock on effects? Yes. But very little actual impact on day to day life. It becomes obvious to see why many people will vote against these policies.

If you can describe to somebody how it will meaningfully adversely affect their life, you will get more support. Hence why I suggest using numbers rather than "scare language" when discussing.

excalibur• 5 years ago

Yeah, but it's a dry heat /s

Bombthecat3• 5 years ago

https://i.redd.it/gdra4d4cl5h71.png

2065, 4 plus Celsius projected by the ipcc. And usually they are very very Conservative to not be labelled alarmists. So.. It's likely going to be 5 or 6.

It’s official: July was Earth’s hottest month on record

Related Stories