‘Potentially the worst drought in 1,200 years’: scientists on the US heatwave(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
‘Potentially the worst drought in 1,200 years’: scientists on the US heatwave
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/18/us-heatwave-west-climate-crisis-drought
152 comments
The nuanced, balanced (albeit uselessly high-level) read would be that our systems were designed for more stable weather than we can reasonably expect going forward.
As far as Texas' power issues go, climate change certainly isn't helping, but it's hard to blame it for Texas' power issues. Why? Because it's very easy to blame Texas' power market for Texas' power issues. The cold snap in 1989 was colder and longer, but the result was largely the same as if it had happened in Michigan.
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/A-t...
Silver lining though for the environment - the invisible hand has pushed 5GW worth of Cold War-era coal plants offline since wind got cheap.
As far as Texas' power issues go, climate change certainly isn't helping, but it's hard to blame it for Texas' power issues. Why? Because it's very easy to blame Texas' power market for Texas' power issues. The cold snap in 1989 was colder and longer, but the result was largely the same as if it had happened in Michigan.
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/A-t...
Silver lining though for the environment - the invisible hand has pushed 5GW worth of Cold War-era coal plants offline since wind got cheap.
The framing of the question in this way will always result and an answer of “you can’t say that this specific event was caused by climate change”, and in many ways asking that exact question is a way to discredit the science.
Science is based on observation of events and then making a theory that can predict likely outcomes in the future. From that perspective, the accurate question becomes “is this event consistent with what we predict the effect of climate change will be?”, and from that point of view, the answer is absolutely “YES”.
Science is based on observation of events and then making a theory that can predict likely outcomes in the future. From that perspective, the accurate question becomes “is this event consistent with what we predict the effect of climate change will be?”, and from that point of view, the answer is absolutely “YES”.
Climate change is just that - climate change. Some areas will get drier - the western US, some areas will get wetter. Dallas is a prime example. Most journalists are getting fed drought stories out of California, but it's clear that Texas is getting more rain than it did two decades ago. "More rain" doesn't sell ad clicks though.
Wasn't the extreme cold front in Texas which left a bunch of people without power ultimately a result of climate change as well?
When dealing with complex interconnected systems there's rarely going to be a single factor to which all problems can be attributed.
When dealing with complex interconnected systems there's rarely going to be a single factor to which all problems can be attributed.
Proving that any one weather event is a result of climate change is tricky, but I don't doubt that you're correct. The Guardian was talking about the current summer issues, though, where we don't have widespread outages yet but they are asking people to cut back on electricity usage because we are at risk of it. And having 97 degree weather in Texas in June is just not unusual, so that cannot plausibly be attributed to climate change.
Four days of freezing weather and several inches of snow, in central Texas, is another kettle of fish, and is quite unusual. But as I read the article that wasn't what they were referring to.
Four days of freezing weather and several inches of snow, in central Texas, is another kettle of fish, and is quite unusual. But as I read the article that wasn't what they were referring to.
> And the reason is linked directly to human caused climate change.
Lines like this seem to imply there is a single reason behind climate events, and that single reason is human caused. It's so blatantly false/misleading that anybody will read it as such.
Lines like this seem to imply there is a single reason behind climate events, and that single reason is human caused. It's so blatantly false/misleading that anybody will read it as such.
Overly dramatic articles like this do a disservice to helping convince people to be more proactive about climate change.
There’s obviously no data going back 1200 years and the temperature proxies used, like ice cores, or tree rings, haven’t been consistently reliable.
The truth is, no one knows what the annual temps of major cities were before about 1870.
Real scientists lack the hubris to be sure of basic truths like whether dinosaurs were warm blooded or cold blooded, how general anesthesia works, how great whites mate, or even why we sleep, much less the exact ebbs and flows of 350,000 daily temperatures.
So for these scientists to say they have an understanding of what the previous thousand years temps were before that, turns the science into faith and adds fuel to those who argue climate science is more religion than science.
Focusing on the last 50 years is more than enough quality data to definitively prove the world is getting hotter, start there. Then provide a list of 3 basic things people can do to help lower temps themselves.
ie, Campaign for nuclear power. Eat less meat, Adjust your thermostat, Change your tires, Buy an electric car, Buy better bulbs, Plant trees with friends.
There’s obviously no data going back 1200 years and the temperature proxies used, like ice cores, or tree rings, haven’t been consistently reliable.
The truth is, no one knows what the annual temps of major cities were before about 1870.
Real scientists lack the hubris to be sure of basic truths like whether dinosaurs were warm blooded or cold blooded, how general anesthesia works, how great whites mate, or even why we sleep, much less the exact ebbs and flows of 350,000 daily temperatures.
So for these scientists to say they have an understanding of what the previous thousand years temps were before that, turns the science into faith and adds fuel to those who argue climate science is more religion than science.
Focusing on the last 50 years is more than enough quality data to definitively prove the world is getting hotter, start there. Then provide a list of 3 basic things people can do to help lower temps themselves.
ie, Campaign for nuclear power. Eat less meat, Adjust your thermostat, Change your tires, Buy an electric car, Buy better bulbs, Plant trees with friends.
This is terrible advice.
So first of all, scientists that study phenomena that started before 1870 are “real” scientists. Not having absolute certainty over something doesn’t mean yours or my opinion has the same weight as a significant amount of evidence that points to a trend over time.
Secondly, telling people to eat less meat, and adjust their thermostat does basically nothing to combat climate change. The amount an individual affects the climate is absolutely trivial compared to the amount that corporations affect the climate. As far as I can tell, most of these actions are best for making people feel like they are making a difference, while doing nothing in reality. It is much more effective to increase accountability over corporations affect on the environment than individual humans.
So first of all, scientists that study phenomena that started before 1870 are “real” scientists. Not having absolute certainty over something doesn’t mean yours or my opinion has the same weight as a significant amount of evidence that points to a trend over time.
Secondly, telling people to eat less meat, and adjust their thermostat does basically nothing to combat climate change. The amount an individual affects the climate is absolutely trivial compared to the amount that corporations affect the climate. As far as I can tell, most of these actions are best for making people feel like they are making a difference, while doing nothing in reality. It is much more effective to increase accountability over corporations affect on the environment than individual humans.
Most of the companies that are claimed to be the biggest polluters are energy providers. This is energy that is ultimately used to produce meat, drive cars and cool our houses. Consumers can either consume less or they can pay more for low/no carbon goods, which has the side effect of lowering consumption.
When dealing with systemic issues of this magnitude taking individual action is often insufficient to affect meaningful change.
Some people simply can't afford it or the options are inaccessible due to geographical constraints.
A good example of this is exposure to harmful plastics. As an individual it's impossible for me to fully avoid all plastic exposure to my body and food.
Some people simply can't afford it or the options are inaccessible due to geographical constraints.
A good example of this is exposure to harmful plastics. As an individual it's impossible for me to fully avoid all plastic exposure to my body and food.
Goverments need to push a massive funding for accelerating our transition of energy to renewable sources. While in parallel pushing for low carbon manufacturing and agriculture techniques to be put into use by corporations.
> telling people to eat less meat [...] does basically nothing to combat climate change
Are you sure?
The main source of deforestation is to use the land for livestock[1], as far as I know the reason is that previously-poor countries are getting rich enough to buy meat (semi-)regularly. Yet you say that eating less meat will do nothing but make you feel good? Seems to me it would help against deforestation if nothing else.
But is deforestation bad in the context of climate change? [2]
> Averaged over 2015—2017, global loss of tropical forests contributed about 4.8 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year (or about 8-10% of annual human emissions of carbon dioxide).
10% of our current emissions is deforestation?! The change in forest cover, so the extra consumption of meat (not the current consumption)?
Frankly this number seems too high. The source of this source checks out at least[3] and it also seems to match with this .gov site [4] at first glance. But I've spent 20 minutes on finding numbers now, it's someone else's turn. I'd be happy to know if it's wrong.
Until such time, please check your facts before talking to other people about just leaning back and letting someone else solve the problem because your contribution "does nothing in reality". Some things like plugging out chargers when not in use are indeed feel-good. Other things that we all do are not. Each individual contribution is obviously meaningless, but we're not talking about Jesus cutting out his individual meat consumption and thereby saving us all, nor do we all have to play Jesus either. Skip meat one day of the week where you would normally have meat, and you already decrease your consumption by >10%. Or replace half your beef-based meals with poultry, that also saves a shitton of CO2e.
Obviously this is not the only thing we need to do. But let's not put on blindfolds and just continue what we've been doing until now while the rest of the world also wants to start doing that.
[1] "agriculture accounts for around 85% of deforestation worldwide. And while this can mostly be attributed to meat production (beef in particular)" https://onetreeplanted.org/blogs/stories/deforestation-cause...
[2] https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/deforestation/
[3] https://www.wri.org/insights/numbers-value-tropical-forests-...
[4] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss...
Are you sure?
The main source of deforestation is to use the land for livestock[1], as far as I know the reason is that previously-poor countries are getting rich enough to buy meat (semi-)regularly. Yet you say that eating less meat will do nothing but make you feel good? Seems to me it would help against deforestation if nothing else.
But is deforestation bad in the context of climate change? [2]
> Averaged over 2015—2017, global loss of tropical forests contributed about 4.8 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year (or about 8-10% of annual human emissions of carbon dioxide).
10% of our current emissions is deforestation?! The change in forest cover, so the extra consumption of meat (not the current consumption)?
Frankly this number seems too high. The source of this source checks out at least[3] and it also seems to match with this .gov site [4] at first glance. But I've spent 20 minutes on finding numbers now, it's someone else's turn. I'd be happy to know if it's wrong.
Until such time, please check your facts before talking to other people about just leaning back and letting someone else solve the problem because your contribution "does nothing in reality". Some things like plugging out chargers when not in use are indeed feel-good. Other things that we all do are not. Each individual contribution is obviously meaningless, but we're not talking about Jesus cutting out his individual meat consumption and thereby saving us all, nor do we all have to play Jesus either. Skip meat one day of the week where you would normally have meat, and you already decrease your consumption by >10%. Or replace half your beef-based meals with poultry, that also saves a shitton of CO2e.
Obviously this is not the only thing we need to do. But let's not put on blindfolds and just continue what we've been doing until now while the rest of the world also wants to start doing that.
[1] "agriculture accounts for around 85% of deforestation worldwide. And while this can mostly be attributed to meat production (beef in particular)" https://onetreeplanted.org/blogs/stories/deforestation-cause...
[2] https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/deforestation/
[3] https://www.wri.org/insights/numbers-value-tropical-forests-...
[4] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss...
Who is the audience for these suggestions? Every country has their own unique profile and path for the next few decades, and the high emitters have far different paths to decarbonization than the low-emitting countries, which will simultaneously industrialize as they adopt the lifestyles of the global north, but with modern low-carbon technology.
If we are talking about the really big emitter, namely the US, then cutting meat is one of the far later actions we need to take. Meat is a tiny fraction of the US's emissions, dwarfed by far harder tech and economic transitions. And dropping meat is a quick action, takes almost no tech/economic, and could be effected in a year or so. Same goes for nearly all high per-capita energy countries, which is the vast majority of the HN audience.
But the real hard change for the US is transportation. It's the biggest source, and it's tied intimately to the (bad) design of our built environment, which necessitates tons of driving and treats non-drivers as oddities and excludes them from access to most of society. The easiest way to lower transportation emissions, switching current vehicles to batteries or to fuels derived from renewable energy, requires an industrial buildout of absolutely massive scale and that needs to happen with such speed that we are not on track by any means. Massive EV deployment is necessary, but insufficient to meet the speed with which we must transition, due to the speed limits of scaling production capacity. And batteries are going to be in demand from the electrical grid, and hydrogen will be hugely in demand for fertilizer (ammonia) and other industrial applications (actually I have little hope of hydrogen being a transport solution at all.)
If we are going to be talking about highly off-putting lifestyle changes to an audience like HN, we should be focusing on massively reducing the need for gasoline based transit. Meaning dense urban infill, tooooooons of infill building in Silicon Vallet, and complete bans of new builds far from jobs and groceries, where most building is happening right now. And there must also be massive building of trains and deployment of EV buses.
Talking about meat has almost no impact for the HN audience except to turn them off from taking any action, because even if people cut down on meat (and I have), it's not nearly as big a deal as switching to a heat pump water heater from natural gas or living closer to work, children's schools, grocery stores, and other daily necessities.
If we are talking about rain forests being cut for farming, sure, that's something that should be addressed, but as a US citizen I have to do so much more locally before I get to tell other countries how to cut their emissions.
If we are talking about the really big emitter, namely the US, then cutting meat is one of the far later actions we need to take. Meat is a tiny fraction of the US's emissions, dwarfed by far harder tech and economic transitions. And dropping meat is a quick action, takes almost no tech/economic, and could be effected in a year or so. Same goes for nearly all high per-capita energy countries, which is the vast majority of the HN audience.
But the real hard change for the US is transportation. It's the biggest source, and it's tied intimately to the (bad) design of our built environment, which necessitates tons of driving and treats non-drivers as oddities and excludes them from access to most of society. The easiest way to lower transportation emissions, switching current vehicles to batteries or to fuels derived from renewable energy, requires an industrial buildout of absolutely massive scale and that needs to happen with such speed that we are not on track by any means. Massive EV deployment is necessary, but insufficient to meet the speed with which we must transition, due to the speed limits of scaling production capacity. And batteries are going to be in demand from the electrical grid, and hydrogen will be hugely in demand for fertilizer (ammonia) and other industrial applications (actually I have little hope of hydrogen being a transport solution at all.)
If we are going to be talking about highly off-putting lifestyle changes to an audience like HN, we should be focusing on massively reducing the need for gasoline based transit. Meaning dense urban infill, tooooooons of infill building in Silicon Vallet, and complete bans of new builds far from jobs and groceries, where most building is happening right now. And there must also be massive building of trains and deployment of EV buses.
Talking about meat has almost no impact for the HN audience except to turn them off from taking any action, because even if people cut down on meat (and I have), it's not nearly as big a deal as switching to a heat pump water heater from natural gas or living closer to work, children's schools, grocery stores, and other daily necessities.
If we are talking about rain forests being cut for farming, sure, that's something that should be addressed, but as a US citizen I have to do so much more locally before I get to tell other countries how to cut their emissions.
[deleted]
> There’s obviously no data going back 1200 years
Historical period. Rome, Egypt, Mayans wrote everything related with taxes and management, including every bad year for agriculture or origin of raw matters. Several 2000 to 4000 Yo documents are available.
12300 years back register: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology
45000 years back fauna catalogue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_painting
800000 years back register: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core
And to look backwards further there is the fossil register, including some species so similar than extant ones that we can have a good clues about the climate where they grow, because they are still among us.
Historical period. Rome, Egypt, Mayans wrote everything related with taxes and management, including every bad year for agriculture or origin of raw matters. Several 2000 to 4000 Yo documents are available.
12300 years back register: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology
45000 years back fauna catalogue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_painting
800000 years back register: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core
And to look backwards further there is the fossil register, including some species so similar than extant ones that we can have a good clues about the climate where they grow, because they are still among us.
Ice cores are interesting. I've given that a bit of thought and what I can't get past is the possibility that the cores show stored CO2 but not CO2 in the air at the time. This was also brought up in a couple PBS space time episodes and a documentary I can't recall the name of. Basically the storage of CO2 is not always related to the CO2 in the atmosphere and there are so many contributing and confounding factors that it is really hard to correlate with certainty. It is entirely possible that there have been brief periods (sub 1k years) that had large spikes of C02 that are not represented by the ice core and sea floor samples. I am not suggesting that core samples are invalid, rather that we may be missing some variables. I am certainly no expert on this topic.
> Eat less meat, Adjust your thermostat, Change your tires, Buy an electric car, Buy better bulbs, Plant trees with friends.
Those are all good things, and we should do that, but the vast majority of emissions come from commerce and industry and not consumers. The single most important thing for people to do is to use whatever influence they have to compel governments, and institutions to eliminate carbon emissions.
> Campaign for nuclear power.
It takes a decade to build a plant. For this to work, we need to speed this up. Scrutinizing regulations and bringing down capital investment needed to build plants could help. But wind and solar can be deployed now, and can be built quickly and I think that, in combination with storage, is our best hope.
Those are all good things, and we should do that, but the vast majority of emissions come from commerce and industry and not consumers. The single most important thing for people to do is to use whatever influence they have to compel governments, and institutions to eliminate carbon emissions.
> Campaign for nuclear power.
It takes a decade to build a plant. For this to work, we need to speed this up. Scrutinizing regulations and bringing down capital investment needed to build plants could help. But wind and solar can be deployed now, and can be built quickly and I think that, in combination with storage, is our best hope.
>but the vast majority of emissions come from commerce and industry and not consumers.
And what do you think industry/commerce is serving? Consumers.
And what do you think industry/commerce is serving? Consumers.
...also shareholders.
I assume the implication is to stop buying their stuff? Or choose other market participants who have lower emissions in their supply chain?
Try changing your utility provider. If you go to a store and ask an employee how much carbon was released to produce one or another product, how likely will you get an answer for every product you need in your daily life?
Our markets provide consumers with neither the influence nor the information needed to apply their purchasing power to lower the carbon emissions of corporations. Policy is needed to eliminate emissions.
I assume the implication is to stop buying their stuff? Or choose other market participants who have lower emissions in their supply chain?
Try changing your utility provider. If you go to a store and ask an employee how much carbon was released to produce one or another product, how likely will you get an answer for every product you need in your daily life?
Our markets provide consumers with neither the influence nor the information needed to apply their purchasing power to lower the carbon emissions of corporations. Policy is needed to eliminate emissions.
>...also shareholders
Right, but Exxon isn't drilling for oil so they can pay dividends to their shareholders in the form of oil.
>I assume the implication is to stop buying their stuff?
Yes, what do you think would happen if a corporation saw that demand was dropping?
>Our markets provide consumers with neither the influence nor the information needed to apply their purchasing power to lower the carbon emissions of corporations. Policy is needed to eliminate emissions.
Refusing to buy such products would lead to it not being produced. What else do you think would happen? That they'll continue producing a surplus and let it pile up?
As for still buying the product but wanting it to be less polluting, I agree that policy is the best solution, as long as you can get everyone on board. This is tricky because support for the environment tends to drop when people realize they have to pay for it.
Right, but Exxon isn't drilling for oil so they can pay dividends to their shareholders in the form of oil.
>I assume the implication is to stop buying their stuff?
Yes, what do you think would happen if a corporation saw that demand was dropping?
>Our markets provide consumers with neither the influence nor the information needed to apply their purchasing power to lower the carbon emissions of corporations. Policy is needed to eliminate emissions.
Refusing to buy such products would lead to it not being produced. What else do you think would happen? That they'll continue producing a surplus and let it pile up?
As for still buying the product but wanting it to be less polluting, I agree that policy is the best solution, as long as you can get everyone on board. This is tricky because support for the environment tends to drop when people realize they have to pay for it.
In my state of California, 28% of the GHGs are from light passenger vehicles, 7.7% from agriculture (virtually all of that for animal production), 6.1% for direct residential emissions (natural gas cooking and heating) and 15% for electric generation, of which a third goes to residential loads. That means the majority of the GHG emissions in California are under the direct control of individuals, not commerce and industry.
Is it?
Transport is an infrastructure problem, which is controlled by policy. How many ways do you have to get to work?
I have three. Bus, bike, and car.
- If I decide to ride the bus, I will walk 45 minutes to the bus stop for an express bus, which will take me to my job site, which picks me up 5:50 am and the fare costs as much as gas would for a drive there in a personal vehicle.
- If I decide to bike, there are no direct routes with a bike lane. The remaining routes have been shutdown due to construction, but cars are still afforded a lane. I either have to take very long and convoluted routes through neighborhoods or ride on a 60mph expressway with no median.
- If I drive, I have a choice of several routes of well maintained road infrastructure and I am confident that I will arrive in 30mins.
If we want to place the responsibility of vehicle GHG emissions on consumers, we need to at least stop biasing against non-car transportation options. Otherwise we’ll end up with a lot of blame, and no reductions in GHG emissions. A call to action should be placed on people who have agency over the situation (politicians) and not on people who have none.
Transport is an infrastructure problem, which is controlled by policy. How many ways do you have to get to work?
I have three. Bus, bike, and car.
- If I decide to ride the bus, I will walk 45 minutes to the bus stop for an express bus, which will take me to my job site, which picks me up 5:50 am and the fare costs as much as gas would for a drive there in a personal vehicle.
- If I decide to bike, there are no direct routes with a bike lane. The remaining routes have been shutdown due to construction, but cars are still afforded a lane. I either have to take very long and convoluted routes through neighborhoods or ride on a 60mph expressway with no median.
- If I drive, I have a choice of several routes of well maintained road infrastructure and I am confident that I will arrive in 30mins.
If we want to place the responsibility of vehicle GHG emissions on consumers, we need to at least stop biasing against non-car transportation options. Otherwise we’ll end up with a lot of blame, and no reductions in GHG emissions. A call to action should be placed on people who have agency over the situation (politicians) and not on people who have none.
Government of and by the people, is the way I heard it.
Right, but which people? The biggest determinant of whether people can live close to their jobs in Cupertino is not the people that work there, but the tiny minority of Cupertino residents that live in Cupertino and have the time to follow the intricacies of zoning; namely the wealthy and retired, the people who typically have a lot of wealth tied up in their Cupertino real estate and benefit hugely by keeping new housing out, both economically and in their aesthetic preferences.
Our system for determining who gets to have short commutes and who are damned to long, high carbon commutes, is inherently undemocratic and can not be fixed as is. We need state level regulation to overpower the greed of local entrenched interests.
Our system for determining who gets to have short commutes and who are damned to long, high carbon commutes, is inherently undemocratic and can not be fixed as is. We need state level regulation to overpower the greed of local entrenched interests.
Very interesting numbers! I always appreciate having a breakdown like this so my personal actions can have some rational basis.
Where were you able source them from? And is there a full list that could be posted alongside your comment?
Where were you able source them from? And is there a full list that could be posted alongside your comment?
California's Air Resource Board tracks this:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-descriptions-sources
The full inventory is quite detailed, and it takes a bit of data mingling to dive deeper, but it can be done.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-descriptions-sources
The full inventory is quite detailed, and it takes a bit of data mingling to dive deeper, but it can be done.
But California is such a tiny fraction of global emissions that it's almost irrelevant in the long run. Cargo ships and manufacturing are the serious issues. Sure, do what you can to reduce your personal footprint, but know that you can't make a difference without changing some paradigms.
What percentage from wildfires?
I guess you meant this as some kind of checkmate moment, but wildfire emissions are quantified separately, are considered part of the atmospheric carbon cycle, and are 10-100x smaller than human GHG emissions from fossil fuels, depending on the year. In 2019 they were 1.1%.
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2018/g...
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/ca_wildfire_co2_emi...
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2018/g...
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/ca_wildfire_co2_emi...
Not sure why you assume it was a checkmate at all, could have been a purely inquisitive question. But thanks for providing your response with links, I’ve been curious about wildfires as well.
Quite an interesting question as well. Looks like SF Chronicle did an article on it [0] and estimates 111,700,000 metric tons released last year (a record year with 4.2 million acres burned).
I don't know how that fits into the overall % the the OP shared, but it'd be good to factor into the plan since it's likely to make things worse.
[0] https://www.sfchronicle.com/california-wildfires/article/Cal...
I don't know how that fits into the overall % the the OP shared, but it'd be good to factor into the plan since it's likely to make things worse.
[0] https://www.sfchronicle.com/california-wildfires/article/Cal...
Increased wildfires are a positive feedback effect of too much carbon in the atmosphere…
And generally they are releasing carbon that was captured by vegetation fairly recently.
And generally they are releasing carbon that was captured by vegetation fairly recently.
> There’s obviously no data going back 1200 years
Yes, it's not like there were societies with writing in Europe, Asia, Africa or the Americas back then (probably Oceania too, but they may have been 100% oral tradition). It's not like they would notice and write down major weather events. It's not like we have reports about supernovas from 1400 years ago.
Yes, it's not like there were societies with writing in Europe, Asia, Africa or the Americas back then (probably Oceania too, but they may have been 100% oral tradition). It's not like they would notice and write down major weather events. It's not like we have reports about supernovas from 1400 years ago.
> There’s obviously no data going back 1200 years and the temperature proxies used, like ice cores, or tree rings, haven’t been consistently reliable.
Not my area, but what does it mean to say they're not consistently reliable if we don't have the ground truth to compare them with? Especially given that, when talking about a given region, you may only have one imperfect signal?
But aside from that, the claim that "this current drought is potentially on track to become the worst that we’ve seen in at least 1,200 years" doesn't say anything specifically about temperatures. It would be nice if they had explicitly clarified what "worst" means. Do we have better ways to judge how _wet_ years or decades were a millennia ago, for given regions?
You're accusing the cited experts from turning the issue into a faith, but the second and third scientists both mention the way that the current observations are in line with prior, model-based predictions. That sounds like falsifiable hypotheses being held up to new information. Isn't that almost the essence of science?
Not my area, but what does it mean to say they're not consistently reliable if we don't have the ground truth to compare them with? Especially given that, when talking about a given region, you may only have one imperfect signal?
But aside from that, the claim that "this current drought is potentially on track to become the worst that we’ve seen in at least 1,200 years" doesn't say anything specifically about temperatures. It would be nice if they had explicitly clarified what "worst" means. Do we have better ways to judge how _wet_ years or decades were a millennia ago, for given regions?
You're accusing the cited experts from turning the issue into a faith, but the second and third scientists both mention the way that the current observations are in line with prior, model-based predictions. That sounds like falsifiable hypotheses being held up to new information. Isn't that almost the essence of science?
It’s basically career suicide to spend any time at all trying to disprove anything in climate science. Who’s gonna fund you? Exxon Mobile?
So the climate scientists have carte blanche to provide data and analysis with little fear of critical pushback.
Prestigious science academies and ad hoc expert committees deliver reports that say (or imply), first, that meaningful trends can be identified, and, second, that the rates and magnitudes of temperature increase observed are ipso facto unusual or dangerous.
“To compare late 20th century warming with earlier geological warm events requires the use of local proxy data, because no global temperature statistics are available prior to the 20th century. One of the best such datasets that extends over an adequate period of time is the oxygen isotope record from the Greenland ice core already referred to (Grootes et al, 1993; Davis and Bohling, 2001). These data show a ~1500 year warming-cooling cycle of 1 - 2°C magnitude. This cyclicity is probably of solar origin (Bond et al, 2001; Singer and Avery, 2006), and the late 20th century warming period represents a peak within it (Figure 10). Consistent with this, Solanki et al (2004) have shown that the activity of the sun has been building since the end of the Little Ice Age in the late 19th century, and that over the last 60 years it has been at its strongest since the early Holocene, c. 8000 ybp. In turn, Svensmark (2007, and other papers) has identified a possible mechanism whereby solar activity affects cosmic ray influx which in turn controls the cloud formation that acts as one of the Earth’s main thermostats.
The Greenland ice core data also reveal typical rates of temperature change of up to 2.5°C/century for periods of cooling and warming of decadal to centennial time span (Figure 11). In Greenland, then, the late 20th century warming proceeded at unalarming rates to reach a peak that was probably cooler than were the preceding Minoan, Mediaeval and Roman warm periods. And at the other pole, in Antarctica, similar ice core evidence shows that late 20th century temperature was up to 5°C cooler than temperature highs associated with geologically recent interglacial periods (Watanabe et al, 2003). Therefore, the magnitude of the late 20th century warming, and its rate of change, both fall well within known natural limits. In addition, the late 20th century warming that is widely attributed to human greenhouse emissions is of similar rate and magnitude to an earlier natural warming between 1905 and 1940; in relationship to which, it has been shown that the warmest decade of the last 1250 years in the European Alps was the 1940s rather than the 1990s (Buntgen et al, 2006). The IPCC’s (2001, p 97) prescient diagnosis therefore remains true today:
The fact that the global mean temperature has increased since the late 19th century and that other trends have been observed does not necessarily mean that an anthropogenic effect on the climate system has been identified. Climate has always varied on all time-scales, so the observed change may be natural. A more detailed analysis is required to provide evidence of a human impact. “"
But who’s gonna dispute any of that said analysis? Basically it's the Big Labowski meme, "You're not wrong, you're just a dick," because at the end of the day, being ecologically aware, and trying to minimize human's environmental footprint is still a noble cause and will still effect our grandchildren even if the end result is only cleaner air, cleaner water, and less trash in our communities.
So the climate scientists have carte blanche to provide data and analysis with little fear of critical pushback.
Prestigious science academies and ad hoc expert committees deliver reports that say (or imply), first, that meaningful trends can be identified, and, second, that the rates and magnitudes of temperature increase observed are ipso facto unusual or dangerous.
“To compare late 20th century warming with earlier geological warm events requires the use of local proxy data, because no global temperature statistics are available prior to the 20th century. One of the best such datasets that extends over an adequate period of time is the oxygen isotope record from the Greenland ice core already referred to (Grootes et al, 1993; Davis and Bohling, 2001). These data show a ~1500 year warming-cooling cycle of 1 - 2°C magnitude. This cyclicity is probably of solar origin (Bond et al, 2001; Singer and Avery, 2006), and the late 20th century warming period represents a peak within it (Figure 10). Consistent with this, Solanki et al (2004) have shown that the activity of the sun has been building since the end of the Little Ice Age in the late 19th century, and that over the last 60 years it has been at its strongest since the early Holocene, c. 8000 ybp. In turn, Svensmark (2007, and other papers) has identified a possible mechanism whereby solar activity affects cosmic ray influx which in turn controls the cloud formation that acts as one of the Earth’s main thermostats.
The Greenland ice core data also reveal typical rates of temperature change of up to 2.5°C/century for periods of cooling and warming of decadal to centennial time span (Figure 11). In Greenland, then, the late 20th century warming proceeded at unalarming rates to reach a peak that was probably cooler than were the preceding Minoan, Mediaeval and Roman warm periods. And at the other pole, in Antarctica, similar ice core evidence shows that late 20th century temperature was up to 5°C cooler than temperature highs associated with geologically recent interglacial periods (Watanabe et al, 2003). Therefore, the magnitude of the late 20th century warming, and its rate of change, both fall well within known natural limits. In addition, the late 20th century warming that is widely attributed to human greenhouse emissions is of similar rate and magnitude to an earlier natural warming between 1905 and 1940; in relationship to which, it has been shown that the warmest decade of the last 1250 years in the European Alps was the 1940s rather than the 1990s (Buntgen et al, 2006). The IPCC’s (2001, p 97) prescient diagnosis therefore remains true today:
The fact that the global mean temperature has increased since the late 19th century and that other trends have been observed does not necessarily mean that an anthropogenic effect on the climate system has been identified. Climate has always varied on all time-scales, so the observed change may be natural. A more detailed analysis is required to provide evidence of a human impact. “"
But who’s gonna dispute any of that said analysis? Basically it's the Big Labowski meme, "You're not wrong, you're just a dick," because at the end of the day, being ecologically aware, and trying to minimize human's environmental footprint is still a noble cause and will still effect our grandchildren even if the end result is only cleaner air, cleaner water, and less trash in our communities.
I looked up your first reference (Davis and bailing, 2001), someone has taken their graphs (which stopped around 1950), and extended them to the current day (first graph on https://archive.briankoberlein.com/2017/07/15/a-man-for-all-... ). That looks fundamentally different to the previous cycle. The graph looks right to me.
You initially took issue with the claim about "worst drought in 1,200 years" (in the US), but focused on how we didn't know about temperature that far in the past, and how this kind of claim is irresponsible.
I tried to refocus that drought severity isn't obviously about temperature at all (even during cool periods there can be severe droughts).
Now you're zooming out to the whole global climate change phenomenon.
Is it not possible to talk about droughts in the American west as an independent topic? Reasons why it may be important to discuss and understand:
- hydro power is regionally important, and empty reservoirs will create problems there
- agriculture is a huge part of the economy
- a bunch of people live in areas that will be affected by wildfire smoke ... again
These are happening as part of a larger phenomenon of global warming, but even if that weren't the case, severe droughts happen and can be hugely impactful, and it can be both responsible and important to communicate the key understanding that we may experience a drought event that is unlike any since large populations existed in the region, and therefore may meaningfully disrupt life for millions.
Is it not possible to talk about droughts in the American west as an independent topic? Reasons why it may be important to discuss and understand:
- hydro power is regionally important, and empty reservoirs will create problems there
- agriculture is a huge part of the economy
- a bunch of people live in areas that will be affected by wildfire smoke ... again
These are happening as part of a larger phenomenon of global warming, but even if that weren't the case, severe droughts happen and can be hugely impactful, and it can be both responsible and important to communicate the key understanding that we may experience a drought event that is unlike any since large populations existed in the region, and therefore may meaningfully disrupt life for millions.
> It’s basically career suicide to spend any time at all trying to disprove anything in climate science.
Totally, but in a beautiful way, this actually strikes me as an element of anti-fragility in the bio-cultural system you and I both participate in. It's kinda nice :) Because shit is bad.
Totally, but in a beautiful way, this actually strikes me as an element of anti-fragility in the bio-cultural system you and I both participate in. It's kinda nice :) Because shit is bad.
Anything that was growing, or dying, or depositing, 1200 years ago was pretty familiar with the temperature. Direct observation is not the only form of measurement.
I think you are underestimating the severity of climate change. The climate science models are likely too cautious in general with the exception of considering a technological breakthrough to save us.
I find it curious that many comments echo similar denials. I never understand what the point is in arguing with science results unless you are working in the field yourself. It is as if mathematicians would see a barrage of comments telling them their proofs are obviously wrong.
> ie, Campaign for nuclear power. Eat less meat, Adjust your thermostat, Change your tires, Buy an electric car, Buy better bulbs, Plant trees with friends.
Nuclear has no chance to compete with today's renewables which are on aggressive downward trajectories in price and aren't restricted by long planning cycles.
The missing things in your lists are a general reduction in consumption, a reduction in home size, a reduction in travel.
I find it curious that many comments echo similar denials. I never understand what the point is in arguing with science results unless you are working in the field yourself. It is as if mathematicians would see a barrage of comments telling them their proofs are obviously wrong.
> ie, Campaign for nuclear power. Eat less meat, Adjust your thermostat, Change your tires, Buy an electric car, Buy better bulbs, Plant trees with friends.
Nuclear has no chance to compete with today's renewables which are on aggressive downward trajectories in price and aren't restricted by long planning cycles.
The missing things in your lists are a general reduction in consumption, a reduction in home size, a reduction in travel.
> I think you are underestimating the severity of climate change. The climate science models are likely too cautious in general with the exception of considering a technological breakthrough to save us.
You have about as much ground as the parent to state this. You’re making an appeal to authority.
> I find it curious that many comments echo similar denials. I never understand what the point is in arguing with science results unless you are working in the field yourself.
I agree. The root issue is that the article and more broadly media discussing science. That should not be happening as well, but it is, so the parents post is warranted.
Science is done by humans who are biased. 99% of people cannnot argue with scientists from first principles, so they’re left with trust which is sorely lacking. They naturally start to investigate on their own. What else can they do?
You have about as much ground as the parent to state this. You’re making an appeal to authority.
> I find it curious that many comments echo similar denials. I never understand what the point is in arguing with science results unless you are working in the field yourself.
I agree. The root issue is that the article and more broadly media discussing science. That should not be happening as well, but it is, so the parents post is warranted.
Science is done by humans who are biased. 99% of people cannnot argue with scientists from first principles, so they’re left with trust which is sorely lacking. They naturally start to investigate on their own. What else can they do?
> You’re making an appeal to authority
Yes, what is wrong with that? You cannot rationalize the climate change discussion. The information density of the argument cannot be much compressed than what is tomes of scientific literature. So you need to build trust in authorities and just believe them. This is better than believing your or soembody else's train of thought in an online discussion.
> What else can they do?
No, why do you need to investigate on your own? Nobody does that, and they shouldn't. Heck most people would have a hard time finding the federal code which says that you have to stop at a stop sign. The good thing is that you don't need to because it says Stop and people you trust such as a driving instructor told you.
> The root issue is that the article and more broadly media discussing science.
No, the article is giving statements by scientists that are meant to be approachable to lay-people. There isn't anything bad with that. In particular, the OPs point that a statement such as "maybe the worst drought since 1200 years" (which might as well be) is doing a disservice to fighting climate change, is troubling. It is as if the firefighters are telling you to get out of your house because it is burning, but you are staying because they used bad grammar in their request to you.
Yes, what is wrong with that? You cannot rationalize the climate change discussion. The information density of the argument cannot be much compressed than what is tomes of scientific literature. So you need to build trust in authorities and just believe them. This is better than believing your or soembody else's train of thought in an online discussion.
> What else can they do?
No, why do you need to investigate on your own? Nobody does that, and they shouldn't. Heck most people would have a hard time finding the federal code which says that you have to stop at a stop sign. The good thing is that you don't need to because it says Stop and people you trust such as a driving instructor told you.
> The root issue is that the article and more broadly media discussing science.
No, the article is giving statements by scientists that are meant to be approachable to lay-people. There isn't anything bad with that. In particular, the OPs point that a statement such as "maybe the worst drought since 1200 years" (which might as well be) is doing a disservice to fighting climate change, is troubling. It is as if the firefighters are telling you to get out of your house because it is burning, but you are staying because they used bad grammar in their request to you.
I think the fundamental issue is that you trust these institutions but many others don’t. Your statements make sense if that trust is present.
I was trying to show how the actions you’re confused by are rational given a lack of trust. Whether or not the lack of trust is justified is a different debate.
I was trying to show how the actions you’re confused by are rational given a lack of trust. Whether or not the lack of trust is justified is a different debate.
So on our current trajectory we're doomed, and also there's no point to nuclear because wind and solar will be cheap and abundant in a few years. I'm having a hard time seeing how these claims are mutually consistent.
The missing things in your lists are a general reduction in consumption
There it is. As usual, I'm getting the same vibe as from religious conservatives who oppose birth control and STD vaccines because they allow us to continue our sinful lifestyles.
The missing things in your lists are a general reduction in consumption
There it is. As usual, I'm getting the same vibe as from religious conservatives who oppose birth control and STD vaccines because they allow us to continue our sinful lifestyles.
Less people, about 7 billion less people.
If we had 7 billion less people everything would be fine.
Since humans have no natural predator our reproduction is uncontrolled. Any time a species can reproduce at will with no control bad things happen to their environment, bad things which ultimately will correct the uncontrolled population growth. Humans inhabited the entire planet and our uncontrolled population growth impacts the entire planet, which is why the climate of the entire planet is impacted.
What's happening with the environment is EXACTLY what should be happening with the planet as a response to humans uncontrolled population growth. The unfortunate side effect is that we are going to take down a lot of other species with us.
If we had 7 billion less people everything would be fine.
Since humans have no natural predator our reproduction is uncontrolled. Any time a species can reproduce at will with no control bad things happen to their environment, bad things which ultimately will correct the uncontrolled population growth. Humans inhabited the entire planet and our uncontrolled population growth impacts the entire planet, which is why the climate of the entire planet is impacted.
What's happening with the environment is EXACTLY what should be happening with the planet as a response to humans uncontrolled population growth. The unfortunate side effect is that we are going to take down a lot of other species with us.
No natural predators?
Nile Crocodiles
Saltwater Crocodiles
hippopotami
Wolves
Mosquitoes (by far the most deadly)
have all preyed on humans for tens of thousands of years
https://www.npr.org/2019/08/04/748002281/a-history-of-the-mo...
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-2806_article
Nile Crocodiles
Saltwater Crocodiles
hippopotami
Wolves
Mosquitoes (by far the most deadly)
have all preyed on humans for tens of thousands of years
https://www.npr.org/2019/08/04/748002281/a-history-of-the-mo...
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-2806_article
[deleted]
>> Eat less meat, Adjust your thermostat, Change your tires, Buy an electric car, Buy better bulbs, Plant trees with friends
I'm not going to be doing any of those things.
I'm not going to be doing any of those things.
I’ll eat more pasture raised meat, which sequesters carbon and improves soil health.
You could eat less meat, pasture raised or not.
Not too fast.
New Zealand produces beef and diary. It’s trashing the waterways and producing methane at an alarming rate. It’s really bad for the environment.
New Zealand produces beef and diary. It’s trashing the waterways and producing methane at an alarming rate. It’s really bad for the environment.
Much of the northern hemisphere was under ice thousands of years ago. Of course the Earth is warming, it has been warming since the end of the last ice age. 99% of the worlds ice coverage melted before 1900, and some people are ringing alarm bells because the remaining 1% is melting faster than whatever completely fabricated baseline.
Sounds like a good reason to minimize pollutants and use cleaner, renewable resources.
A look at historical sea levels is a fun way to outrage people.
https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-does-present-glacier-extent-an...
https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-does-present-glacier-extent-an...
[deleted]
> We need to continue to push for urgent action on climate change
The other scientists echoed that thought.
The problem is that there's little consensus on what that "urgent action" entails.
Fossil fuel overconsumption and the culture/economics of waste are deeply engrained behaviors for a lot of the world.
There's this widespread sense that technology and/or legislation will somehow be able to roll back increases in CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions. I think that's baloney.
The last year offered a window into the future. Many industrial economies were taken offline to an unprecedented degree. And the result was... a new record high in atmospheric CO2.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/07/carbon-d...
Assuming that the underlying hypothesis is correct (that the CO2 increase is in fact what's driving temperature increases and that humans are responsible for it), the only thing that seems capable of addressing the problem in a meaningful way within the time we have left is immediate, large-scale cutbacks in consumption across the board, with industrial economies bearing the highest burden.
And this is the one thing that never seems to be on the table.
The other scientists echoed that thought.
The problem is that there's little consensus on what that "urgent action" entails.
Fossil fuel overconsumption and the culture/economics of waste are deeply engrained behaviors for a lot of the world.
There's this widespread sense that technology and/or legislation will somehow be able to roll back increases in CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions. I think that's baloney.
The last year offered a window into the future. Many industrial economies were taken offline to an unprecedented degree. And the result was... a new record high in atmospheric CO2.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/07/carbon-d...
Assuming that the underlying hypothesis is correct (that the CO2 increase is in fact what's driving temperature increases and that humans are responsible for it), the only thing that seems capable of addressing the problem in a meaningful way within the time we have left is immediate, large-scale cutbacks in consumption across the board, with industrial economies bearing the highest burden.
And this is the one thing that never seems to be on the table.
I finally read/listened to Jared Diamond's "Collapse" earlier this year. It discusses several cases of societies collapsing or being challenged, especially in the face of environmental damage and climate change, but also issues with neighbors. Two of the lessons that he highlights are the importance of long-term, bold plans to confront problems before they are crises, and the ability to reconsider cultural values and actually change the way that people live and society functions.
That book was published in 2005 and last updated in 2011, and it was depressing to get to the last chapter which focuses on the environmental problems we face today with a kind of call to action, and acknowledge that we haven't done anything substantial yet.
That book was published in 2005 and last updated in 2011, and it was depressing to get to the last chapter which focuses on the environmental problems we face today with a kind of call to action, and acknowledge that we haven't done anything substantial yet.
Diamond is notorious in the anthropological community for pushing outdated and debunked theories, and Collapse has some of the worst. I think every case of ecological self-destruction he lists is considered debunked by the mainstream community (certainly, his views on Rapa Nui and Greenland are thoroughly debunked)--indeed, there's an entire book published that's a lengthy critique of his work, titled (fittingly) Questioning Collapse.
Thanks for pointing this out! As a layperson I had no idea. I suppose I did get the sense that like many authors with a Framework in mind, Diamond was likely picking and choosing examples.
Without trivializing the work and scholarship, are there generalized take-away messages that you think the public should know from Questioning Collapse? Or is it mostly of interest to people seeking to understand the specific societies addressed?
Without trivializing the work and scholarship, are there generalized take-away messages that you think the public should know from Questioning Collapse? Or is it mostly of interest to people seeking to understand the specific societies addressed?
> Without trivializing the work and scholarship, are there generalized take-away messages that you think the public should know from Questioning Collapse?
Sometimes, the most important generalized take-away message is that there aren’t generalized take-away messages. Many times the causes for collapse are different and multi-factorial that an overarching theory that tries to generalize across a bunch of events is more misleading than helpful.
Sometimes, the most important generalized take-away message is that there aren’t generalized take-away messages. Many times the causes for collapse are different and multi-factorial that an overarching theory that tries to generalize across a bunch of events is more misleading than helpful.
I get that sometimes we get carried away trying to universalize something and let a good story get in the way of the actual facts. This is to be avoided, and if others hold those narratives up to rigorous scrutiny, that's healthy.
However, it doesn't seem helpful to swing the pendulum all the way to the other end of the spectrum, where we regard everything as being so rooted in the specific and context and circumstances, that we're unwilling to draw any lessons to apply to modern problems. Surely there's some middle ground, where we can have some loose generalizations which we acknowledge only apply some of the time and are only ever partial explanations?
However, it doesn't seem helpful to swing the pendulum all the way to the other end of the spectrum, where we regard everything as being so rooted in the specific and context and circumstances, that we're unwilling to draw any lessons to apply to modern problems. Surely there's some middle ground, where we can have some loose generalizations which we acknowledge only apply some of the time and are only ever partial explanations?
Last year didn't offer a window into the future.
The future is:
* Low co2 steel - https://cen.acs.org/environment/green-chemistry/steel-hydrog...
* Low CO2 cement - https://www.ecocem.ie/ecocem-materials-limited-raises-e22-5m...
* The EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism to prevent transferring manufacturing to countries with high CO2 emissions - https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/publication/what-doe...
* Tightening emissions regulations in the EU, helping to drive the adoption of EVs - https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/vehicles/regul...
* UK ban on gas and oil boilers from 2025 - https://www.thermalearth.co.uk/blog/gas-boilers-banned-new-h...
* Low CO2 concrete - https://www.aggbusiness.com/ab9/news/first-deployment-ultra-...
These are just a few of the positive developments that I'm aware of.
However, I agree a lot more could be done. At the same time I feel we're reaching a tipping point where regulation and innovation will lead to a the rapid decarbonisation of society. Unfortunately, I'm uncertain this decarbonisation will happen quickly enough.
The future is:
* Low co2 steel - https://cen.acs.org/environment/green-chemistry/steel-hydrog...
* Low CO2 cement - https://www.ecocem.ie/ecocem-materials-limited-raises-e22-5m...
* The EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism to prevent transferring manufacturing to countries with high CO2 emissions - https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/publication/what-doe...
* Tightening emissions regulations in the EU, helping to drive the adoption of EVs - https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/vehicles/regul...
* UK ban on gas and oil boilers from 2025 - https://www.thermalearth.co.uk/blog/gas-boilers-banned-new-h...
* Low CO2 concrete - https://www.aggbusiness.com/ab9/news/first-deployment-ultra-...
These are just a few of the positive developments that I'm aware of.
However, I agree a lot more could be done. At the same time I feel we're reaching a tipping point where regulation and innovation will lead to a the rapid decarbonisation of society. Unfortunately, I'm uncertain this decarbonisation will happen quickly enough.
In other words, technology and legislation, but nothing about cutting consumption.
I agree that you name some excellent technologies. I'm just doubtful that this approach will yield the desired outcome because of the scale of the problem.
Are you aware of any calculations as to what precise technological and legislative innovations, and the scale/timeframe of their deployment, would be needed to maintain an average temperature no more than 2% above pre-industrial levels?
I agree that you name some excellent technologies. I'm just doubtful that this approach will yield the desired outcome because of the scale of the problem.
Are you aware of any calculations as to what precise technological and legislative innovations, and the scale/timeframe of their deployment, would be needed to maintain an average temperature no more than 2% above pre-industrial levels?
I'm afraid I don't. Whilst it seems likely this target won't be met, I'm hoping there's enough small changes across many sectors that add up to substantial progress.
The IEA report had plenty of detail on achieving net zero by 2050. Only skimmed it but it's quite interesting - https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050
I think the biggest challenge is framing the issue of climate change. "Urgent action" regarding climate change is a political/ economic issue. Innovation will have to happen for sure, but replacing current infrastructure will take a long time before economic incentives line up for it to happen naturally. The incentives need to be lined up for everyone to buy in, which is difficult in systems that are disproportionately effected by any changes that need to happen.
Domestically, people will resist change when they suspect that it will leave them short changed economically, everyone has seen how it has played out when other forms of deindustrialization have ravaged large portions of the developed world. When there is no real plans for people effected by such a change, you cannot expect these people to care about the suffering of humanity in 50-100 years when policy changes will cause them to suffer greatly in the meantime. These people need to be on board or there will be political costs that will threaten to undermine it all down the road.
Then on an international level it is matter of finding consensus between many players that have very different ideas on what is fair. Many developing countries do not feel it is fair for developed countries to dictate regulation when they have already done their exploitation to become developed nations. When one of those countries is China, who emitted more greenhouse gasses than the g7 combined in 2019, it becomes a tricky path to navigate. As long as fossil fuels are the cheapest option, it can come across as developed countries making a moat, hindering other countries from catching up. That could lead to the double whammy of developed nations needing to both curtail their fossil fuel energy use, while simultaneously being forced to subsidize development of developing nations to get them on board, which is a very big ask for nations drowning in debt already. On top of that there are geopolitical ramifications that are at the foundation of any negotiation at this scale, especially when large players like China and the US are involved.
For the most part, most of these issues are ignored in popular discourse in favor of divisive rhetoric about being anti-science, probably because it is far easier politically to just dismiss them and kick the issue down the road then try to solve it because it is an extremely difficult problem to solve. Even those that are most vocal about climate change don't offer any real policy solutions to these issues outside of vague things involving printing a ton of money, going into a ton of debt or getting a ton of extra tax revenue.
Domestically, people will resist change when they suspect that it will leave them short changed economically, everyone has seen how it has played out when other forms of deindustrialization have ravaged large portions of the developed world. When there is no real plans for people effected by such a change, you cannot expect these people to care about the suffering of humanity in 50-100 years when policy changes will cause them to suffer greatly in the meantime. These people need to be on board or there will be political costs that will threaten to undermine it all down the road.
Then on an international level it is matter of finding consensus between many players that have very different ideas on what is fair. Many developing countries do not feel it is fair for developed countries to dictate regulation when they have already done their exploitation to become developed nations. When one of those countries is China, who emitted more greenhouse gasses than the g7 combined in 2019, it becomes a tricky path to navigate. As long as fossil fuels are the cheapest option, it can come across as developed countries making a moat, hindering other countries from catching up. That could lead to the double whammy of developed nations needing to both curtail their fossil fuel energy use, while simultaneously being forced to subsidize development of developing nations to get them on board, which is a very big ask for nations drowning in debt already. On top of that there are geopolitical ramifications that are at the foundation of any negotiation at this scale, especially when large players like China and the US are involved.
For the most part, most of these issues are ignored in popular discourse in favor of divisive rhetoric about being anti-science, probably because it is far easier politically to just dismiss them and kick the issue down the road then try to solve it because it is an extremely difficult problem to solve. Even those that are most vocal about climate change don't offer any real policy solutions to these issues outside of vague things involving printing a ton of money, going into a ton of debt or getting a ton of extra tax revenue.
The simplest solution is: $30/tonne CO2 price, and also requiring fossil fuel exporters (including in other countries) to add this price to their exports unless the shipment is going to a country that also has a carbon price.
Doesn't china have vast coal reserves and an extreme willingness to burn it?
In such a situation, we need punitive tariffs to compensate. It is unclear how to calculate them from my perspective.
In such a situation, we need punitive tariffs to compensate. It is unclear how to calculate them from my perspective.
>Doesn't china have vast coal reserves and an extreme willingness to burn it?
China's share of coal energy production has declined precipitously. While the total amount continues to increase, they are making large investments into both solar and nuclear energy. Like it or not China's still a fairly rapidly growing economy that produces most of the renewable technologies for the world. Any phase-out of coal while trying to push things like electric cars is going to take time.
>In such a situation, we need punitive tariffs to compensate.
Yes, Australia should be sanctioned for using and selling so much coal to China. In a country that has the easiest situation to produce solar energy and copious uranium reserves, they still get something like half their energy from coal and have no nuclear energy. They have consistently had one of the highest per-capita CO2 emissions of any country.
Or why not talk about stupid Germany that shut down their nuclear plants without a clear path to eliminating coal use. They had to build new plants and import coal while they waited to become dependent on Russia for natural gas.
China's share of coal energy production has declined precipitously. While the total amount continues to increase, they are making large investments into both solar and nuclear energy. Like it or not China's still a fairly rapidly growing economy that produces most of the renewable technologies for the world. Any phase-out of coal while trying to push things like electric cars is going to take time.
>In such a situation, we need punitive tariffs to compensate.
Yes, Australia should be sanctioned for using and selling so much coal to China. In a country that has the easiest situation to produce solar energy and copious uranium reserves, they still get something like half their energy from coal and have no nuclear energy. They have consistently had one of the highest per-capita CO2 emissions of any country.
Or why not talk about stupid Germany that shut down their nuclear plants without a clear path to eliminating coal use. They had to build new plants and import coal while they waited to become dependent on Russia for natural gas.
The simplest solution is for everyone to just stop using fossil fuels but simple doesn't mean easy, possible, or good in any way that matters. Your solution would give an economic advantage to countries which don't cooperate. How will you persuade any country (including the US) to shoot itself in the foot first? That doesn't sound simple.
It is never on the table, because it is not politically viable, and why should it be when it would be worse than the disease?
We either figure out how to solve this with the tools that we have and can develop (I am looking at you, geoengineering) or we deal with the effect (buy stock in companies that build dykes, sell your home if it is less than 20 meters above sea level).
We are not going to return to preindustrial level society, not only is that a hellish existence but 7 billion is about 6 billion more than the earth can support.
We either figure out how to solve this with the tools that we have and can develop (I am looking at you, geoengineering) or we deal with the effect (buy stock in companies that build dykes, sell your home if it is less than 20 meters above sea level).
We are not going to return to preindustrial level society, not only is that a hellish existence but 7 billion is about 6 billion more than the earth can support.
> The last year offered a window into the future. Many industrial economies were taken offline to an unprecedented degree.
Um, what got taken offline?
The service economy got taken offline. And it contributes very little to the emissions problem.
Driving got knocked down some, but not as much as you would think. Sure, HN denizens all went into hibernation, but most of them work in tech and account for a fairly small number of the total employment numbers.
Manufacturing actually went up in most sectors.
Um, what got taken offline?
The service economy got taken offline. And it contributes very little to the emissions problem.
Driving got knocked down some, but not as much as you would think. Sure, HN denizens all went into hibernation, but most of them work in tech and account for a fairly small number of the total employment numbers.
Manufacturing actually went up in most sectors.
Isn't methane much more of an offender than CO2?
No, co2 is bigger by quite a bit. Methane is increasing rapidly which is a big concern because of potential feedback effects.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
One molecule of methane is worse than one molecule of CO2. But there is more CO2 than there is methane, so the total 'warming' by CO2 is worse.
Except we've already reached higher saturation (for black body radiation absorption) with CO2 than with methane. So, there is certainly a strong case to be made that methane is more impactful in the short-term than CO2 in terms of climate warming.
I haven't heard that before and it sounds conceptually incompatible with generally accepted concepts like the globally remaining CO2 budget (how could we have a budget, if we've already reached the CO2 saturation point and adding more doesn't worsen the problem?). Do you have a source for this?
Well the climate never becomes completely insensitive to further increases in CO2 concetration - lookup the band saturation effect. I wasn't citing a specific source, only pointing out that different gases absorb at different wavelengths, some of which (like methane) have potential to absorb much more with increasing concentration. IIRCC there are other factors, like the persistence time in the atmosphere, that make CO2 more worrysome.
I took this edx course on climate modeling a few years ago that was fantastic if you want to dig deeper and the professor does cover these topics (which I'm likely butchering) - https://courses.edx.org/courses/UChicagoX/PS280x/2015_T1/cou...
I took this edx course on climate modeling a few years ago that was fantastic if you want to dig deeper and the professor does cover these topics (which I'm likely butchering) - https://courses.edx.org/courses/UChicagoX/PS280x/2015_T1/cou...
Methane decays relatively rapidly.
Relatively quickly, but it’s also really potent. 25-36 times worse over the first century, despite the decay period of 12 years: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warmin...
(Note that while linked page says 28-36, another page on the same site says 25).
(Note that while linked page says 28-36, another page on the same site says 25).
And just to clarify, the underlying hypothesis is correct. And your conclusion is also correct.
There is little consensus among political leaders who can make a change, but quite consistent consensus among scientists and activists.
> immediate, large-scale cutbacks in consumption across the board, with industrial economies bearing the highest burden.
Would that cure be worse than the disease?
Would that cure be worse than the disease?
"Urgent action" was defined in Kyoto, Doha, and then Paris.
It wasn't urgent enough to actually happen, but the goals and consequences of failing to meet them were clearly specified.
It's now (probably) too late for prevention, so policy needs to shift to mitigation.
That's a far harder problem, and the solution set will be far more costly.
To be clear - this is a massive failure of collective intelligence and of the default policy metrics used to make decisions.
An intelligent civilisation would not have allowed this to happen.
It wasn't urgent enough to actually happen, but the goals and consequences of failing to meet them were clearly specified.
It's now (probably) too late for prevention, so policy needs to shift to mitigation.
That's a far harder problem, and the solution set will be far more costly.
To be clear - this is a massive failure of collective intelligence and of the default policy metrics used to make decisions.
An intelligent civilisation would not have allowed this to happen.
The Paris Agreement does not define "urgent action." It does offer a broad vision for the end goal (reducing the increase in global temperature), but leaves implementation up to the signatories.
https://unfccc.int/files/meetings/paris_nov_2015/application...
I haven't read the others, but would not be surprised to see similar language.
https://unfccc.int/files/meetings/paris_nov_2015/application...
I haven't read the others, but would not be surprised to see similar language.
By the time the "I told you so"s can be deployed, there isn't much we can do. With brains optimized for short-term thinking and over-optimism against all evidence (or just the innate ability to compartmentalize and ignore an imminent threat), it's like this crisis was custom built to kill off humans.
> it's like this crisis was custom built to kill off humans.
dialectics instilled in me by USSR education sees nothing surprising here. Increasing quantity of human activity creates qualitatively new conditions. All systems develop from crisis to crisis, each time being forced to undergo qualitative transformation to overcome another crisis or perish otherwise (i.e. exploit the current state as much as possible, hit the crisis resulting from the over-exploitation, explore for a new state, get into it if successful, exploit...). Human civilization has become a planet scale factor while lacking planet scale means to manage its impact - that is a classic dialectical quantity vs. quality mismatch leading to a crisis which if not proactively "soft landed" will settle on its own through a catastrophic style readjustment.
And if to look as an outside observer - there is some logic to it as giving that humans are on the edge of becoming a space faring civilization the humans are either to deal with the climate change on their own planet or shouldn't be able to move to the next levels of energy/technology, handling other star systems and civilizations.
dialectics instilled in me by USSR education sees nothing surprising here. Increasing quantity of human activity creates qualitatively new conditions. All systems develop from crisis to crisis, each time being forced to undergo qualitative transformation to overcome another crisis or perish otherwise (i.e. exploit the current state as much as possible, hit the crisis resulting from the over-exploitation, explore for a new state, get into it if successful, exploit...). Human civilization has become a planet scale factor while lacking planet scale means to manage its impact - that is a classic dialectical quantity vs. quality mismatch leading to a crisis which if not proactively "soft landed" will settle on its own through a catastrophic style readjustment.
And if to look as an outside observer - there is some logic to it as giving that humans are on the edge of becoming a space faring civilization the humans are either to deal with the climate change on their own planet or shouldn't be able to move to the next levels of energy/technology, handling other star systems and civilizations.
“I told you so” doesn’t work as people who didn’t listen in the first place aren't likely to listen when they are clearly in the wrong. Instead, they double down and will find a way to make you the person who was wrong.
I generally don't condone "I told you so"s myself. But it's very difficult to stay silent in this case when they've basically doomed the future inhabitants of this planet.
You don't get to say "I told you so" until after the doom has occurred. Otherwise it might turn out to be them having told you so.
And now we are back to square one: my initial comment.
In the decades to come, many of those in denial and angry at those who warn about the realities involved in climate change will instead angrily blame those who issued the warnings for not having been persuasive enough. There's a relevant scene in The Last King of Scotland. [0]
[0] https://blog.codinghorror.com/but-you-did-not-persuade-me/
[0] https://blog.codinghorror.com/but-you-did-not-persuade-me/
There’s some interesting selection bias here; “survivorship bias” would be misleading in this case. Specifically, any crisis that _wasn’t_ so well-tuned to run against our species’ inbuilt shortcomings wouldn’t be so threatening, as we’d likely have addressed it and moved on.
Climate change is not expected to kill off humans. You're spreading misinformation.
There are speculative theories on a future "hothouse earth" scenario which could, in fact, drive human extinction (as if human extinction is all that matters). But yes, speculation on global human extinction or mere catastrophic societal collapse is just that: speculative. Our models aren't predictive enough to tell us, for example whether the drier, hotter climate and unpredictable weather patterns will cause food instability, mass migration, and collapse in certain regions. We can be fairly confident of one thing; people like you and me who probably won't be materially affected will continue to drive the "wait and find out" strategy.
The problem of climate extremists is that they have no idea what the risks to humans are, yet they want to cripple or destroy civilization just in case it's bad. There's a cost-benefit balance to be struck and people screeching about the end of the world are incapable of doing that.
It's like banning the use of radio just in case hostile aliens pick up our signals and know we're here and come and attack Earth. Yea, it's a risk, yea it might kill off humans, or at least cause food instability, but it's a low risk so we decide to employ the "wait and find out" strategy.
You might say aliens invading is a ridiculously low risk, unlike the catastrophes caused by climate change, but to compare them, you have to quantify the risk climate change. Nobody has, as far as I know. I've seen some predictions of costs, lives lost, sea level rise, temperature rise, but all of them are extremely tame and no worse that common disasters that we already experience and tolerate.
It's like banning the use of radio just in case hostile aliens pick up our signals and know we're here and come and attack Earth. Yea, it's a risk, yea it might kill off humans, or at least cause food instability, but it's a low risk so we decide to employ the "wait and find out" strategy.
You might say aliens invading is a ridiculously low risk, unlike the catastrophes caused by climate change, but to compare them, you have to quantify the risk climate change. Nobody has, as far as I know. I've seen some predictions of costs, lives lost, sea level rise, temperature rise, but all of them are extremely tame and no worse that common disasters that we already experience and tolerate.
Again, "killing off all humans" is not the only concern. We already know about the mass extinction event that's being caused by our current activities. (This is only partly caused by global warming, of course). Ignoring that is unconscionable. And we can see the effects of the climate change already happening to humans even in the US, with rare floods happening almost every year and record setting heat waves and droughts causing power problems and water insecurity. So clearly there will need to be some behavior modification or big actions to tackle the new normal.
Anyway, it doesn't really seem like switching away from fuels that spew poison into the air and periodically facilitate catastrophic harm to ocean wildlife is going to, uh "cripple or destroy civilization." As for costs:
> Global warming comes with a big price tag for every country around the world. The 80 percent reduction in U.S. emissions that will be needed to lead international action to stop climate change may not come cheaply, but the cost of failing to act will be much greater. New research shows that if present trends continue, the total cost of global warming will be as high as 3.6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). Four global warming impacts alone—hurricane damage, real estate losses, energy costs, and water costs—will come with a price tag of 1.8 percent of U.S. GDP, or almost $1.9 trillion annually (in today’s dollars) by 2100. We know how to avert most of these damages through strong national and international action to reduce the emissions that cause global warming. But we must act now. The longer we wait, the more painful—and expensive—the consequences will be.
1. https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/cost.pdf
Anyway, it doesn't really seem like switching away from fuels that spew poison into the air and periodically facilitate catastrophic harm to ocean wildlife is going to, uh "cripple or destroy civilization." As for costs:
> Global warming comes with a big price tag for every country around the world. The 80 percent reduction in U.S. emissions that will be needed to lead international action to stop climate change may not come cheaply, but the cost of failing to act will be much greater. New research shows that if present trends continue, the total cost of global warming will be as high as 3.6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). Four global warming impacts alone—hurricane damage, real estate losses, energy costs, and water costs—will come with a price tag of 1.8 percent of U.S. GDP, or almost $1.9 trillion annually (in today’s dollars) by 2100. We know how to avert most of these damages through strong national and international action to reduce the emissions that cause global warming. But we must act now. The longer we wait, the more painful—and expensive—the consequences will be.
1. https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/cost.pdf
Killing off humans is the only concern I was talking about. Obviously other things are predicted to happen, and may be worth preventing, depending on the cost.
> the total cost of global warming will be as high as 3.6 percent of gross domestic product
This is what I mean by tame. That cost is equivalent to just a couple of years of paused economic growth. It means living in the year 2100 will feel like 2095 or so in terms of GDP. That's not a very serious problem.
> the total cost of global warming will be as high as 3.6 percent of gross domestic product
This is what I mean by tame. That cost is equivalent to just a couple of years of paused economic growth. It means living in the year 2100 will feel like 2095 or so in terms of GDP. That's not a very serious problem.
It already has. What are you talking about?
https://www.who.int/heli/risks/climate/climatechange/en/
https://www.who.int/heli/risks/climate/climatechange/en/
"kill off" not "kill".
Like "kill off" entire villages, right?
No. Like "kill off humans", as the OP said.
Humans are great at long term thinking, however capitalism is not
Many individuals are pretty good at it. Many more are bad at it. Groups typically end up taking action based on the lowest common denominator. This is irrespective of ideology.
Irrespective of a ideology focused around consumerism, overconsumption and short-term gain by huge corporations who pay no cost for the future damage they are causing?
There isn’t any biological or otherwise necessary reason why Coke and Pepsi need to exist, and yet we are generating a huge amount of greenhouse gasses to produce it whilst choking the environment with their plastic refuse after it is consumed.
I think it’s disingenuous at best to say “well capitalism has nothing to do with the current state of the captialist-run world”
There isn’t any biological or otherwise necessary reason why Coke and Pepsi need to exist, and yet we are generating a huge amount of greenhouse gasses to produce it whilst choking the environment with their plastic refuse after it is consumed.
I think it’s disingenuous at best to say “well capitalism has nothing to do with the current state of the captialist-run world”
Coke and Pepsi give pleasure to people. In a way, that's the most important reason for anything to exist. Do you want a world without any pleasures that have any environmental costs? What would it look like? What else wouldn't exist and what would you keep despite the environmental cost?
An authoritarian communist regime has proven to be just as focused on the short term, even more narrowly scoped to a small group of oligarchs, and without name of the positive byproducts of a capitalist society. Is there an alternative system that you have in mind? Because that's really the way to demonstrate this is a property of capitalism in particular, and not humans in general.
There's a lot of evidence monarchy, dictatorship, socialism , mercantilism, and fuedalism also aren't great at long-term thinking.
What's your solution? Be China during it's golden age of credit expansion? Why not be the US during it's golden age of credit expansion?
I don't think there's a governing/economic silver-bullet.
What's your solution? Be China during it's golden age of credit expansion? Why not be the US during it's golden age of credit expansion?
I don't think there's a governing/economic silver-bullet.
The solution is to shift away from a system that hijacks our species' selfishness in the name of domination over nature to one where we live in harmony with the environment. Only one of the forms of government you mentioned has threatened human extinction.
Can someone explain why orf and RedXIII are being heavily downvoted without explanations? Aren't their claims generally (or often) true... sure, not 100%. Please explain why you are downvoting to enhance the discussion.
They like many of us now, dare speak up against the official dogma of the day.
However, most will argue capitalism has proven to be the most efficient way to allocate resources correctly. So it's quite unclear how to ie. incorporate externalized costs into the system, without breaking it.
Accountants make for terrible leadership.
However, most will argue capitalism has proven to be the most efficient way to allocate resources correctly. So it's quite unclear how to ie. incorporate externalized costs into the system, without breaking it.
Accountants make for terrible leadership.
Yes. This is a thing that exists. I’m not sure why it’s relevant to parents comment though.
If capitalism is geared for short term next quarter thinking like everyone says, why do companies like Plug Power, with their negative revenue have $17 billion valuations?
Looking around it seems to me these are failures of government and government policy (i.e. failures of the people - I can't even convince people to stop buying plastic bottles of water) . Capitalism and businesses operate within the context of the environment they're in.
China has lots of environmental problems and they have an autocracy. Maybe the less capitalistic you country is the less environmentally friendly your country is instead. One has to think that to the extent that resources aren't subjected to the tragedy of the commons, capitalists tend to be concerned with not killing the golden goose.
Look around and ask yourself which countries are at least on paper most concerned with the environment and then ask yourself what kind of economies they have.
Look at Europe: Norway, Switzerland, Sweden, United Kingdom, France, Denmark, Belgium, etc... -> all highly concerned with the environment and all highly capitalist countries.
China has lots of environmental problems and they have an autocracy. Maybe the less capitalistic you country is the less environmentally friendly your country is instead. One has to think that to the extent that resources aren't subjected to the tragedy of the commons, capitalists tend to be concerned with not killing the golden goose.
Look around and ask yourself which countries are at least on paper most concerned with the environment and then ask yourself what kind of economies they have.
Look at Europe: Norway, Switzerland, Sweden, United Kingdom, France, Denmark, Belgium, etc... -> all highly concerned with the environment and all highly capitalist countries.
"Maybe doing all this cocaine is actually good for me," he said, blood dripping from his crusted nose. "Maybe it's everyone else who has a problem."
Here's some pictures and video of the drought if anyone's curious: https://news.sky.com/story/in-pictures-how-blistering-heatwa...
Should me more like "the new normal: like the worst droughts in 1200 years".
,
That's potentially misleading in a couple ways:
* By default, years before 2019 aren't turned on. 2016 in particular looks fairly close to 2021.
* At first glance, it looks like 2021 is plunging straight toward 0 -- but wait, the y axis starts at 1065. The whole chart only covers the range 1065-1100. This year's level is currently 98.3% of last year's!
Are things still bad? Maybe, but I would want an expert interpretation, not a confusing chart.
* By default, years before 2019 aren't turned on. 2016 in particular looks fairly close to 2021.
* At first glance, it looks like 2021 is plunging straight toward 0 -- but wait, the y axis starts at 1065. The whole chart only covers the range 1065-1100. This year's level is currently 98.3% of last year's!
Are things still bad? Maybe, but I would want an expert interpretation, not a confusing chart.
Axis does not start at zero so the magnitude of the effect is exaggerated
It also looks a bit less dire when you display 2016.
1200 years is nothing. The earth is laughing at you.
No problems if we just got serious about desal.
Back in the early/mid 80s (don't remember the year) the brook behind our house dried up. Unless that thing dries up again, I am calling bs on this 1200-year drought.
CA drought is nothing new and our native plant community is evidence of such. Human driven climate change is not likely to help the situation, but without it CA would still face periodic droughts and mega droughts which would cause problems for society.
If you live in CA, please take the time to learn about our native plant community and encourage the use of natives in landscaping: https://www.laspilitas.com/advanced/advecology.htm
If you live in CA, please take the time to learn about our native plant community and encourage the use of natives in landscaping: https://www.laspilitas.com/advanced/advecology.htm
By definition, a 1200 year event is at least a little unusual
>” By definition, a 1200 year event is at least a little unusual”
For humans, yes. But for an ecosystem on a geologic timescale? It makes sense that native plants would be adapted to withstand events.
For humans, yes. But for an ecosystem on a geologic timescale? It makes sense that native plants would be adapted to withstand events.
I don't see how that follows. Many forests in California are fossil remnants of a wetter, cooler climate. They cannot spread nor establish themselves in this climate, so when they get damaged by drought, disease, or fire they don't return. The native plants are not adapted to it.
[deleted]
It's like rolling 2d6 for the weather each year - 2, 3, 4, 5 is a cool summer, 6-8 is human comfortable normal and most likely, 9-12 is hotter or drier than normal.
Oh, and every half degree C of warming adds a pip to each side of one of the dice. 1 degree of warming? Each of those dice is now 2-7 not 1-6. 1.5 C? Now there's a 2-7 and a 3-8. Doesn't change that "6-8 is comfortable" though.
Edit: I noticed but blew past the dice mention in the article, and what I'm describing is different. Dr Hayhoe describes it as replacing sides with additional 6s, but that's different. What we're experiencing is a gradual change of where the center point of the distribution curve is, but without a corresponding change in the values at which humans are comfortable (or even able to live, look up "wet bulb" in the context of climate change).
Edit2: if what gets you massive heat waves are rolls of 12 or higher, adding a pip means there are now more ways to get there - (6,6) but also (5,7) and (6,7). Adding yet another pip would mean even more ways, along with the corresponding reduction in ways to get the bottom of the previous range.
Oh, and every half degree C of warming adds a pip to each side of one of the dice. 1 degree of warming? Each of those dice is now 2-7 not 1-6. 1.5 C? Now there's a 2-7 and a 3-8. Doesn't change that "6-8 is comfortable" though.
Edit: I noticed but blew past the dice mention in the article, and what I'm describing is different. Dr Hayhoe describes it as replacing sides with additional 6s, but that's different. What we're experiencing is a gradual change of where the center point of the distribution curve is, but without a corresponding change in the values at which humans are comfortable (or even able to live, look up "wet bulb" in the context of climate change).
Edit2: if what gets you massive heat waves are rolls of 12 or higher, adding a pip means there are now more ways to get there - (6,6) but also (5,7) and (6,7). Adding yet another pip would mean even more ways, along with the corresponding reduction in ways to get the bottom of the previous range.
The article uses that exact analogy.
I've noticed a trend on HN were a commenter will literally take something verbatim from the article, or maybe put it in their own words, and farm a bunch of votes.
I do this because the market for karma-rich HN accounts is pretty vibrant. DM if interested in making an offer.
Different and intentionally so, comment edited with more reasoning.
> This current drought is potentially on track to become the worst that we’ve seen in at least 1,200 years. And the reason is linked directly to human caused climate change.
So, if there were worse droughts 1200+ years ago, what caused those? Of course, saying a drought is linked to warming doesn't make any sense. More heat should result in more water vapor, which should result in more rain.
What I like about the climate change nonsense is any and all weather phenomenon can be linked to it. Too hot? Climate change. Too cold? Climate change. Too wet or too dry? Climate change. There's literally nothing that can't be attributed to climate change in some way.
So, if there were worse droughts 1200+ years ago, what caused those? Of course, saying a drought is linked to warming doesn't make any sense. More heat should result in more water vapor, which should result in more rain.
What I like about the climate change nonsense is any and all weather phenomenon can be linked to it. Too hot? Climate change. Too cold? Climate change. Too wet or too dry? Climate change. There's literally nothing that can't be attributed to climate change in some way.
> More heat should result in more water vapor, which should result in more rain.
I think the reason you're being downvoted is that this is very "first-order" thinking that fails to consider changes to pressure systems, wind patterns, etc that might affect where rain falls not just how much. Even assuming you're right about rainfall increasing with warming, rain falling in the ocean does not stop a drought on land.
Meanwhile, most people who have dedicated their careers to studying second and third order effects of increased temperature on the weather seem to think these things are connected. I'm more inclined to agree with them than with you.
I think the reason you're being downvoted is that this is very "first-order" thinking that fails to consider changes to pressure systems, wind patterns, etc that might affect where rain falls not just how much. Even assuming you're right about rainfall increasing with warming, rain falling in the ocean does not stop a drought on land.
Meanwhile, most people who have dedicated their careers to studying second and third order effects of increased temperature on the weather seem to think these things are connected. I'm more inclined to agree with them than with you.
It's not even accurate to a first order approximation. Ignoring all else, higher temperatures lead to higher vapor density and lower relative humidity. That is, more evaporation and less precipitation.
Are you aware of the concept of greenhouse gases?
[deleted]
We are definitely having issues with power, but that's mostly due to increased population (and other issues related to changing power sources), not from excess heat. Temperatures in central Texas are in the mid 90's, which is not unusual for Texas. There's problems, sure, but not really related to climate change.
When scientists try to link anything that is going wrong currently to anthropogenic climate change, they don't convince more people. If anything, they create more skeptics, because people can tell that they're not getting an objective read on the situation. There are probably scientists who are willing to provide a nuanced, balanced read on things, who would probably say that drought and wildfires in California might be related to climate change, but power shortages in Texas are not. They are not the sort of scientists who get their pictures in The Guardian.