January 2020 warmest on record: EU climate service(phys.org)
phys.org
January 2020 warmest on record: EU climate service
https://phys.org/news/2020-02-january-warmest-eu-climate.html
86 comments
Even though this is still a weather variation event it is very strange to be living in Stockholm and feeling like it's spring since December, the cherry blossoms at Kungsträdsgården were blooming in early/mid-January. We had less than 5-6 days of snow in total so far and for two weekends in a row there were days over 8C. Even frost has been rare this winter so far...
It is pretty damn strange.
It is pretty damn strange.
I don't normally shill subreddits -- and advise everyone to use an ad blocker while on that website -- but for those who find this news alarming and/or shrug it off as media hysteria, I highly suggest popping over to /r/collapse.
The immediate reaction (as an ego defense mechanism) is to dismiss what you will read as unproductive fear mongering. However, it is a far worse fate to be surprised by the reality of the situation (both environmental and social) when these processes hit their limit and begin affecting the neoliberal institutions that govern our world. The best way to protect yourself and your family is to stay informed, no matter how dire the truth may be.
The time for gradual change was decades ago; the only thing that will save us now (and when I say save, I mean allow modern civilization to continue) is radical action.
The immediate reaction (as an ego defense mechanism) is to dismiss what you will read as unproductive fear mongering. However, it is a far worse fate to be surprised by the reality of the situation (both environmental and social) when these processes hit their limit and begin affecting the neoliberal institutions that govern our world. The best way to protect yourself and your family is to stay informed, no matter how dire the truth may be.
The time for gradual change was decades ago; the only thing that will save us now (and when I say save, I mean allow modern civilization to continue) is radical action.
My parents who live in the South of France had 26°C two days ago. People were swimming in the sea. Crazy.
There is unfortunately no stopping this as there is no or very little political will.
It's worse than that. There is very determined political will, across much of the globe, to stoke global heating further for short-term benefit.
In my country (Australia) we had a federal election last year. The climate issues were very clearly laid out, and most citizens here accept the science, and have some understanding of the severity of the issue. Yet they voted very decisively against any further action to reduce emissions.
Most of the electorate here simply will not countenance changes from business as usual. Of the world's more significant population centres, Europe is the most realistically ambitious but is too fractious & bureaucratic to rapidly make the necessary big decisions, the US is weighed down with a sclerotic political system and a huge proportion of the population with dogmatically anti-scientific attitudes, China is backpedalling due to economic worries, and India has enough troubles of its own.
We're toast - this must be clear to everyone at this stage.
In my country (Australia) we had a federal election last year. The climate issues were very clearly laid out, and most citizens here accept the science, and have some understanding of the severity of the issue. Yet they voted very decisively against any further action to reduce emissions.
Most of the electorate here simply will not countenance changes from business as usual. Of the world's more significant population centres, Europe is the most realistically ambitious but is too fractious & bureaucratic to rapidly make the necessary big decisions, the US is weighed down with a sclerotic political system and a huge proportion of the population with dogmatically anti-scientific attitudes, China is backpedalling due to economic worries, and India has enough troubles of its own.
We're toast - this must be clear to everyone at this stage.
> We're toast - this must be clear to everyone at this stage.
Yeah, unfortunately you are more right than you know. Like, right all the way to the bottom of the human soul. Climate change is both too fast and too slow for us to deal with effectively. In the past, humankind was never united in a global economy powered by fossil fuels and fed by financial markets driven by AI. It could never grow at a very large exponent. Now, fueled by massive population growth and even more massive economic growth, we've entered into a very steep exponent indeed. Running on theories generated by thousands of economic PhDs and underwritten by national monetary policies, the machine is finally eating the world. Literally. Capital is flowing everywhere for economic development, from vast palm oil plantations across southeast Asia, to Lithium mines in South America, to cattle farms in Brazil, to vacation homes in every picturesque spot on the planet, we're chopping it all down. And that's just the sheer physical digestion of nature. We're pumping out our waste products at record rates, and thirsty for more, we equate energy consumption with quality of life.
And worst of all, we will not stop nor even let our foot off the gas. We're locked in the patterns of international struggle for dominance even as we are locked in interpersonal struggles for sexual competition. He who makes the most money, touts the biggest consumer markets, the greatest exports or GDP or most powerful weapons...that person is crowned king of a smouldering planet.
We cannot right this ship. We are just apes, ffs. We can't evolve past our basal instincts and our antibiotics and satellites are no witness to the betterment of the human soul. We reached the apex of better angels of our nature and greed and corruption and the brutal mathematics of a game theoretic dilemma where every last human stands more to gain from defecting than cooperating.
We're gonna smash this motherfucker against the wall as hard as she will go. And the greatest irony of it all is there written in the bibles that evangelicals clutch to their chests as they gnash their teeth for more prosperity as god promised. And that was the simple wise truth, that cuts to the core of all that is today's sin: the love of money is the root of all evil.
Yeah, unfortunately you are more right than you know. Like, right all the way to the bottom of the human soul. Climate change is both too fast and too slow for us to deal with effectively. In the past, humankind was never united in a global economy powered by fossil fuels and fed by financial markets driven by AI. It could never grow at a very large exponent. Now, fueled by massive population growth and even more massive economic growth, we've entered into a very steep exponent indeed. Running on theories generated by thousands of economic PhDs and underwritten by national monetary policies, the machine is finally eating the world. Literally. Capital is flowing everywhere for economic development, from vast palm oil plantations across southeast Asia, to Lithium mines in South America, to cattle farms in Brazil, to vacation homes in every picturesque spot on the planet, we're chopping it all down. And that's just the sheer physical digestion of nature. We're pumping out our waste products at record rates, and thirsty for more, we equate energy consumption with quality of life.
And worst of all, we will not stop nor even let our foot off the gas. We're locked in the patterns of international struggle for dominance even as we are locked in interpersonal struggles for sexual competition. He who makes the most money, touts the biggest consumer markets, the greatest exports or GDP or most powerful weapons...that person is crowned king of a smouldering planet.
We cannot right this ship. We are just apes, ffs. We can't evolve past our basal instincts and our antibiotics and satellites are no witness to the betterment of the human soul. We reached the apex of better angels of our nature and greed and corruption and the brutal mathematics of a game theoretic dilemma where every last human stands more to gain from defecting than cooperating.
We're gonna smash this motherfucker against the wall as hard as she will go. And the greatest irony of it all is there written in the bibles that evangelicals clutch to their chests as they gnash their teeth for more prosperity as god promised. And that was the simple wise truth, that cuts to the core of all that is today's sin: the love of money is the root of all evil.
You sound angry. I'd suggest defanging that by considering eventual collapse as always having been our civilisation's trajectory.
Any creature that manages to escape, for a period, limits on its reproduction is going to overrun its environment. That's just elementary ecology. It should only be surprising to the religiously-minded who never truly believed humans to be part of the physical world. This includes many atheists raised on a superstitious belief in inevitable 'progress'.
If you think about it, the notion that the assemblage of cognitive, conative and affective faculties that evolution installed on a primate for the purposes of hunting and small group coordination were somehow magically going to be up to the job of managing a whole planet was always pretty fanciful.
Any creature that manages to escape, for a period, limits on its reproduction is going to overrun its environment. That's just elementary ecology. It should only be surprising to the religiously-minded who never truly believed humans to be part of the physical world. This includes many atheists raised on a superstitious belief in inevitable 'progress'.
If you think about it, the notion that the assemblage of cognitive, conative and affective faculties that evolution installed on a primate for the purposes of hunting and small group coordination were somehow magically going to be up to the job of managing a whole planet was always pretty fanciful.
> You sound angry.
I am. I've been around and around this thing for decades, a misanthrope since my teenage years. A lot of us who delved deep into tech and scifi absorbed myths about the future of humans as a space-faring, enlightened and truly advanced race. After the internet and the great advancements in computing, it seemed maybe we were reaching into truths of the universe and would join God in his great datacenter in the sky, cranking pure mathematical harmony and joy in our ever-expanding understanding of scientific knowledge. But we weren't climbing into heaven, or building a space elevator up there. We weren't even making ivory towers or steel skyscrapers. It's still been our base primate instincts at work. Greed. All of that striving after science and mathematics and technology has never been any different than digging up the hills for gold or slashing down the forests to plant our wheat. We're dwarves; we're diggers, miners, destroyers, conquerors, killers, pyschopaths. And that guilt triggers in me because I see the delicate things, the beautiful things, that we have destroyed to get here. And the future just looks like one big highway littered with McDonald's with powerlines strewn across, dusty and dilapidated. We fucked Earth. You bet I am angry.
I am. I've been around and around this thing for decades, a misanthrope since my teenage years. A lot of us who delved deep into tech and scifi absorbed myths about the future of humans as a space-faring, enlightened and truly advanced race. After the internet and the great advancements in computing, it seemed maybe we were reaching into truths of the universe and would join God in his great datacenter in the sky, cranking pure mathematical harmony and joy in our ever-expanding understanding of scientific knowledge. But we weren't climbing into heaven, or building a space elevator up there. We weren't even making ivory towers or steel skyscrapers. It's still been our base primate instincts at work. Greed. All of that striving after science and mathematics and technology has never been any different than digging up the hills for gold or slashing down the forests to plant our wheat. We're dwarves; we're diggers, miners, destroyers, conquerors, killers, pyschopaths. And that guilt triggers in me because I see the delicate things, the beautiful things, that we have destroyed to get here. And the future just looks like one big highway littered with McDonald's with powerlines strewn across, dusty and dilapidated. We fucked Earth. You bet I am angry.
Then (forgive me if I'm mistaken here) it seems like you are probably clinging to the Enlightenment myths of human supremacy and inevitable 'progress'. To be angry that humans aren't transcending physical and ecological reality implies that you think it was possible to have done so. A bit like a lapsed Catholic still feeling guilty in the face of accusations from a God that they claim to no longer believe in.
Haha, there is some truth to what you say. I was indeed raised Catholic, but I'm an atheist now. No, I think that there is a case to be made that wanton destruction is morally bad and I think my values stem from that. We wouldn't be in such a bad pickle if our population wasn't nearing 8 billion. How much of that is really necessary to support one of the giant spires of our technological thrust? A million? A hundred million? I don't think even a billion humans would be necessary for all of the tech behind the computer industry.
I hear you. Coming from one of the rogue nationx when it comes to climate change, I have my moments too.
Still, on reflection, I'm pretty sure our current trajectory was inevitable the moment humans developed agriculture. We're the wildly pullulating caterpillar devouring our tree, and always were going to be just what we are. Just another species. Just another dead end in evolution's exploration of ecological state space.
Still, on reflection, I'm pretty sure our current trajectory was inevitable the moment humans developed agriculture. We're the wildly pullulating caterpillar devouring our tree, and always were going to be just what we are. Just another species. Just another dead end in evolution's exploration of ecological state space.
Yeah, I pretty much agree with you about agriculture, especially after reading "Sapiens" by Hariri.
> We're the wildly pullulating caterpillar devouring our tree, and always were going to be just what we are.
It's really mind-blowing to think of us as a planetary-scale caterpillar. Thanks for the analogy!
Cheers.
> We're the wildly pullulating caterpillar devouring our tree, and always were going to be just what we are.
It's really mind-blowing to think of us as a planetary-scale caterpillar. Thanks for the analogy!
Cheers.
> We are just apes, ffs.
> every last human stands more to gain from defecting than cooperating.
Is it human nature, or is it the design of money? [1][2]
[1] The Future of Money by Bernard Lietaer
[2] http://ceptr.org
> every last human stands more to gain from defecting than cooperating.
Is it human nature, or is it the design of money? [1][2]
[1] The Future of Money by Bernard Lietaer
[2] http://ceptr.org
> Europe is the most realistically ambitious but is too fractious & bureaucratic to rapidly make the necessary big decisions
I think EU is the only significant region to have actually decreased CO2 emissions over the past few decades: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/World_fo...
That's not to say they couldn't have done more, but it's kinda sad that everyone else is drawing a flat line or going up. EU alone is not going to save the planet, even if they somehow stopped emissions altogether.
I think EU is the only significant region to have actually decreased CO2 emissions over the past few decades: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/World_fo...
That's not to say they couldn't have done more, but it's kinda sad that everyone else is drawing a flat line or going up. EU alone is not going to save the planet, even if they somehow stopped emissions altogether.
Agree the EU is in better shape than much of the world. There's a lot of technical arguments about how well it's doing in practise. But even the fact that it's at issue shows that at least it has some chance of meeting its 40%-cut-by-2030 Paris target. And it has a fairly solid consensus about the dimensions of the problem, lacking the fake polarisation corruptly injected by the fossil fuel industry into the US and Australia's political systems.
Maybe Americans could start changing their way of life rather than waiting for « political will » or a never coming technological revolution. UE has started reducing CO2 emissions will keeping a very reasonable and increasing level of life.
USA is certainly a problem, but the elephants in the room are China and India.
Current emissions have the US at 2x India and current emissions are obviously irrelevant since it’s total cumulative emissions that matter, where the US runs away with it.
I assume you mean EU. However, while EU countries have made a lot of promises and plans, they're not actually keeping them either and people are complaining about impact on their daily lives. At least the US is transparent in not wanting to change (their President is).
It's easy to blame politics, but voters really do have an effect on this and there's hardly any will there either. The fastest growing party in the Netherlands is huge on climate denial and stopping or rolling back anything done against climate change. Their voters are adamant that there's no real issue with climate change, that everything is exaggerated and that it's all a left-wing conspiracy.
Most people want to remain at the same level of comfort and luxury, and that's not possible if we want to effectively combat climate change. We'd need to fly less, drive less and consume less and that's the opposite of what's happening in the world.
Most people want to remain at the same level of comfort and luxury, and that's not possible if we want to effectively combat climate change. We'd need to fly less, drive less and consume less and that's the opposite of what's happening in the world.
Quite. It's really very boring to hear people endlessly whinging about politicians, then refusing to vote for those offering anything different from BAU. There are no perfect democracies, but citizens surely must accept some responsibility for their voting decisions.
Well, I met an old man dying on a train. He told me: "no more destination, no more pain."
(Note: this is intended as a very harsh condemnation.)
(Note: this is intended as a very harsh condemnation.)
I say we kill our heroes and fly.
edit: downvotes for finishing the song lyric. Cheers, HN.
edit: downvotes for finishing the song lyric. Cheers, HN.
Never let your fear decide your fate.
Comparison is the source of tragedy
I've been wondering why TSLA has been trading the way it has. A normal short squeeze doesn't adequately explain it. The volume today alone is more than 2x the last reported shares short.
We all know something very, very bad is going on with the climate.
We all know something very, very bad is going on with the climate.
What does the current TESLA share prices have to do with the environment situation?
It's not like TESLA has some magic pixie dust that can save the world tomorrow. Environmental impact from current ICE cars is fairly small compared to the pollution caused by mass manufacturing with no recycling, heavy industry, coal burning, shipping, etc. People buying more Teslas are a drop in the ocean when it comes to saving the environment, like putting a band aid on a slit artery.
People buy TSLA because it makes them money and buy Teslas because they're nice cars. If they really wanted to save the environment, they would ride a bike.
It's not like TESLA has some magic pixie dust that can save the world tomorrow. Environmental impact from current ICE cars is fairly small compared to the pollution caused by mass manufacturing with no recycling, heavy industry, coal burning, shipping, etc. People buying more Teslas are a drop in the ocean when it comes to saving the environment, like putting a band aid on a slit artery.
People buy TSLA because it makes them money and buy Teslas because they're nice cars. If they really wanted to save the environment, they would ride a bike.
"Environmental impact from current ICE cars is fairly small compared to the pollution caused by mass manufacturing with no recycling, heavy industry, coal burning, shipping, etc"
I agree the problem is bigger, but non-industrial transport is about 15% of CO2 emissions in the US. It's nontrivial. There is also the grid storage business.
Anyway, I don't care to make this about Tesla/TSLA but the stock movement has made me wonder if there was material news I was unaware of. That could be a breakthrough in efficiency or that is good for Tesla, or it could be much worse than expected climate forecasts that might direct very large spending their way (among other things).
I agree the problem is bigger, but non-industrial transport is about 15% of CO2 emissions in the US. It's nontrivial. There is also the grid storage business.
Anyway, I don't care to make this about Tesla/TSLA but the stock movement has made me wonder if there was material news I was unaware of. That could be a breakthrough in efficiency or that is good for Tesla, or it could be much worse than expected climate forecasts that might direct very large spending their way (among other things).
>Environmental impact from current ICE cars is fairly small compared to the pollution caused by mass manufacturing with no recycling, heavy industry, coal burning, shipping, etc.
That's only true in countries that did absolutely nothing. The reality is that when you stop burning coal then unchanged emission sources like cars grow in relative terms and become more important.
That's only true in countries that did absolutely nothing. The reality is that when you stop burning coal then unchanged emission sources like cars grow in relative terms and become more important.
Yes, but how many people can afford Teslas in order to make a difference? Even in Europe, only the wealthy currently own a Tesla and those are still secondary cars to other ICEs they own. 90% of drivers are still driving 5-10 year old VW Golf like cars.
It's not that TESLA can save the world, it's that if the world needs an urgent intervention TESLA will benefit from the effort.
> if the world needs an urgent intervention TESLA will benefit from the effort
That's a triumph of hope over experience if ever I heard one. We need an urgent intervention right now. The chances of it happening? Pretty damn close to nil, I'd say.
That's a triumph of hope over experience if ever I heard one. We need an urgent intervention right now. The chances of it happening? Pretty damn close to nil, I'd say.
Thanks, that was my point.
Investing in TSLA right now is basically a way of making money by shorting the survival of life on Earth.
There is no Planet B. The energy expenditure required to 1) terraform Mars and make its environment habitable to humans, and 2) get enough people there... is several orders of magnitude harder than fixing our problems here on Earth.
Even if that plan was viable: we simply don't have the time to do so before we kill ourselves off.
There is no Planet B. The energy expenditure required to 1) terraform Mars and make its environment habitable to humans, and 2) get enough people there... is several orders of magnitude harder than fixing our problems here on Earth.
Even if that plan was viable: we simply don't have the time to do so before we kill ourselves off.
All of us reading this right now are going to die just barely seeing the true extent of the outcomes.
And we'll likely all die reasonably content knowing it's not our problem. We're among the last generations that can expect to ride the current peak in human success before the hard bounds kick in and things either become much more difficult or more likely just completely collapse.
We all love to rest easy on the fallacious idea that (as Carlin put it) "the earth will be fine, it's us who are fucked."
It sounds nice, but the reality is far worse. Beyond a certain temperature bound, the entire biosphere collapses... completely.
"Oh but there are extremophiles that survive insane conditions!"
And what do they feed on? Organic particulate matter that filters down to them from the rest of the biosphere that depends on relatively tight temperature bounds.
Natural selection can only keep up with a certain degree of change in the mean of temperature before it just collapses.
If we generate the conditions for the collapse of human civilization, it's more likely than not that we also take all life on Earth with us.
And statistically... that means the end of life, period. That our planet happened to have the particular temperature bounds for long enough for life to emerge is vanishingly unlikely.
And we'll likely all die reasonably content knowing it's not our problem. We're among the last generations that can expect to ride the current peak in human success before the hard bounds kick in and things either become much more difficult or more likely just completely collapse.
We all love to rest easy on the fallacious idea that (as Carlin put it) "the earth will be fine, it's us who are fucked."
It sounds nice, but the reality is far worse. Beyond a certain temperature bound, the entire biosphere collapses... completely.
"Oh but there are extremophiles that survive insane conditions!"
And what do they feed on? Organic particulate matter that filters down to them from the rest of the biosphere that depends on relatively tight temperature bounds.
Natural selection can only keep up with a certain degree of change in the mean of temperature before it just collapses.
If we generate the conditions for the collapse of human civilization, it's more likely than not that we also take all life on Earth with us.
And statistically... that means the end of life, period. That our planet happened to have the particular temperature bounds for long enough for life to emerge is vanishingly unlikely.
> "Oh but there are extremophiles that survive insane conditions!"
> And what do they feed on?
You are underestimating the diversity of metabolism in bacteria/archaea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaea#Metabolism
As a weird example, there is an isolate cave in Romania, with a weird source of energy http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150904-the-bizarre-beasts-l... . (If that's all life that all life that will survive, it looks like a nightmary scenario. But killing completely all the biosphere is very hard.)
Also, Cyanobacteria will probably be fine. They almost killed accidently everyone else in the past, but there are not hard feeling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanobacteria
> And what do they feed on?
You are underestimating the diversity of metabolism in bacteria/archaea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaea#Metabolism
As a weird example, there is an isolate cave in Romania, with a weird source of energy http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150904-the-bizarre-beasts-l... . (If that's all life that all life that will survive, it looks like a nightmary scenario. But killing completely all the biosphere is very hard.)
Also, Cyanobacteria will probably be fine. They almost killed accidently everyone else in the past, but there are not hard feeling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanobacteria
Even if a handful of unusually adapted species survive, do you think they'll survive for any meaningful amount of time in the absence of any other meaningful biosphere?
And even if they do, why do you assume they (species adapted to environments entirely distinct from 99.99% of Earth) will somehow exist long enough to speciate into a robust planet's worth of species?
The species that exist today have largely survived because collectively they exist in homestasis and regulate their environment. If every tree suddenly disappeared the human race would be gone within hours. Similarly if every warm blooded animal suddenly disappeared plants would start dying in droves within a few days.
And even if they do, why do you assume they (species adapted to environments entirely distinct from 99.99% of Earth) will somehow exist long enough to speciate into a robust planet's worth of species?
The species that exist today have largely survived because collectively they exist in homestasis and regulate their environment. If every tree suddenly disappeared the human race would be gone within hours. Similarly if every warm blooded animal suddenly disappeared plants would start dying in droves within a few days.
Honestly, your comment and prediction terrifies me. Do you have kids? What do you tell them? If you believe what you write, what still gets you up in the morning? Do you by any chance have Savant syndrome/autism/aspergers (I ask this question objectively. I do not mean to make a negative value judgement about you)?
You write below that you work in mathematical biochemistry. What research are your conclusions based on; which authors, measurements etc.?
> All of us reading this right now are going to die just barely seeing the true extent of the outcomes.
Do you feel scared of this collapse you are predicting? Are you distraught by humanity's destruction of our home, because you would you like to see Earth and humanity's beauty continue?
I guess the overarching theme/question for me is: if all this is true, where, and in what, do you find meaning?
Edit: to be clear, I am asking for your personal experiences and strategies. I am not looking for any advice.
You write below that you work in mathematical biochemistry. What research are your conclusions based on; which authors, measurements etc.?
> All of us reading this right now are going to die just barely seeing the true extent of the outcomes.
Do you feel scared of this collapse you are predicting? Are you distraught by humanity's destruction of our home, because you would you like to see Earth and humanity's beauty continue?
I guess the overarching theme/question for me is: if all this is true, where, and in what, do you find meaning?
Edit: to be clear, I am asking for your personal experiences and strategies. I am not looking for any advice.
Widespread crop failure and fisheries collapse due to extreme weather and acidic oceans could be just around the corner. I can't say that with complete certainty (and I really hope it doesn't happen), but I can't dismiss it with any confidence either.
I work in mathematical biochemistry. I'm personally confident everything you've described is around the corner.
That doesn't mean that a total collapse in our food supply is around the corner, but it does suggest a collapse in the availability of certain micronutrients to a large proportion of the population.
What that means is that the outcomes of certain nutritional deficiencies will likely become commonplace diseases societies will now how to cope with. That will of course also affect politics.
That doesn't mean that a total collapse in our food supply is around the corner, but it does suggest a collapse in the availability of certain micronutrients to a large proportion of the population.
What that means is that the outcomes of certain nutritional deficiencies will likely become commonplace diseases societies will now how to cope with. That will of course also affect politics.
Are you able to sketch out the reasons for your confidence?
[Edit: Just realized you wrote the comment I was replying to - so OK I see what you're saying]
[Edit: Just realized you wrote the comment I was replying to - so OK I see what you're saying]
I'm not gonna be "that guy", but I will say that I fully expect cockroaches and tardigrades to survive. Precious little else will. Kiss mammals goodbye.
The biosphere has already got a match in our insane devouring of habitat and industrial-scale poisoning program known as modern agriculture. Not to mention the ocean acidification, garbage patch, and overfishing. People look at me a little nutty, but I seriously think in 100 years the oceans will have nothing alive in them larger than your finger. There will be no tigers, no elephants, no bison, no deer, few or no birds.
The biosphere has already got a match in our insane devouring of habitat and industrial-scale poisoning program known as modern agriculture. Not to mention the ocean acidification, garbage patch, and overfishing. People look at me a little nutty, but I seriously think in 100 years the oceans will have nothing alive in them larger than your finger. There will be no tigers, no elephants, no bison, no deer, few or no birds.
What will they eat? Even if they could survive, the ecosystem that supplies their food won't.
Things that photosynthesize will be able to hang on as long as they can tolerate their local climate and have access to water, nitrogen, and CO2, which are the only building blocks they need. Climate change will destroy a wide variety of intricate networks, and make large parts of the planet uninhabitable, but life will cling to temperate zones.
Surprise! I'm a mathematical biochemist.
The necessary reactions to make a photosynthetic carbohydrate production chemical pathway energetically feasible actually only exist within extremely narrow temperature bounds.
You honestly don't understand how naive you are. You're disguising hope by what sounds vaguely scientific.
Not to mention: exactly where do you think those temperate zones will exist?
The necessary reactions to make a photosynthetic carbohydrate production chemical pathway energetically feasible actually only exist within extremely narrow temperature bounds.
You honestly don't understand how naive you are. You're disguising hope by what sounds vaguely scientific.
Not to mention: exactly where do you think those temperate zones will exist?
> You honestly don't understand how naive you are.
I don't hang around hackernews to get insulted. It's not what we do around here.
I don't hang around hackernews to get insulted. It's not what we do around here.
I don't hang around HN to have every other commenter confirm my existing opinions either.
Being told by someone that they think you're wrong isn't an insult.
If you buy the reassuring yet nonsensical idea that "the humans are fucked, the planet will be fine", you can be adequately classified as cherry-picking a minimally discomfiting worldview, against all evidence. That's not an insult.
Being told by someone that they think you're wrong isn't an insult.
If you buy the reassuring yet nonsensical idea that "the humans are fucked, the planet will be fine", you can be adequately classified as cherry-picking a minimally discomfiting worldview, against all evidence. That's not an insult.
There’s a lot of very low brow discussion going on here so I understand why you’re frustrated. HN does tone police, though, so if you want to participate probably best to play along.
No, but check your wording. Calling someone naive and unable to see it is insulting. Just to give you an additional perspective.
The stuff at the bottom of the ocean in the pitch black doesn't even need a star, it's running on some primitive chemistry and the internal heat of the planet, which is in turn driven by radioactive decay. It isn't going anywhere regardless.
It's running on the organic silt that filters and falls down to it. Where do you think that comes from?
It's chemosynthesis fueled by a continuous stream of organic silt from above and volcanic vents, not magical planetary heat.
It's chemosynthesis fueled by a continuous stream of organic silt from above and volcanic vents, not magical planetary heat.
Are you putting volcanic vents at the bottom of the ocean? No. They're there because the core is hot, which it is because of radioactive decay as I explained.
> And we'll likely all die reasonably content knowing it's not our problem.
That's exactly the kind of thinking that caused this mess (i.e climate catastrophe) in the first place.
Had people prioritized their grandchildren and great-grandchildren instead of short-term profits then the effects of climate change would have been mitigated long ago. For example, companies like Exxon knew of what lay ahead. They chose to condemn future generations using precisely the same logic as you.
That's exactly the kind of thinking that caused this mess (i.e climate catastrophe) in the first place.
Had people prioritized their grandchildren and great-grandchildren instead of short-term profits then the effects of climate change would have been mitigated long ago. For example, companies like Exxon knew of what lay ahead. They chose to condemn future generations using precisely the same logic as you.
Oh, to be clear, I'm not saying my logic is normatively correct.
You're (I think) likely objectively completely right.
You're (I think) likely objectively completely right.
Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification. :)
If we do end up a failed experiment, it is more than likely the great filter theory is correct and we are just one in a billion of endless repetitions that reached their critical mass and fizzled out.
Time literally means nothing to the universe. So the idea we can kill all life in the universe, or are somehow responsible for the creation we live in is oddly religious to me.
Yet you place no real import in the demise of humanity so I'm not sure how to parse it.
Time literally means nothing to the universe. So the idea we can kill all life in the universe, or are somehow responsible for the creation we live in is oddly religious to me.
Yet you place no real import in the demise of humanity so I'm not sure how to parse it.
> Time literally means nothing to the universe.
This simply isn't true. I don't know where you absorbed such a dumb and naive idea, but the current theory pretty much completely rules out your completely unsuppported take.
Gravity is to our best knowledge not symmetric in time, and neither is heat. (Every other fundamental force in QCD is though.) The likelihood of the emergence of life decreases as overall entropy increases.
Moreover, the emergence of life at any point in the universe is already vanishingly unlikely.
If we kill life on Earth, the likelihood of life emerging again is strictly less than that of life on Earth existing as it does. And beyond a certain temperature bound, it's simply impossible. The viability of informational molecules like RNA (even silicon based variants) vanishes above around 60-70C.
This simply isn't true. I don't know where you absorbed such a dumb and naive idea, but the current theory pretty much completely rules out your completely unsuppported take.
Gravity is to our best knowledge not symmetric in time, and neither is heat. (Every other fundamental force in QCD is though.) The likelihood of the emergence of life decreases as overall entropy increases.
Moreover, the emergence of life at any point in the universe is already vanishingly unlikely.
If we kill life on Earth, the likelihood of life emerging again is strictly less than that of life on Earth existing as it does. And beyond a certain temperature bound, it's simply impossible. The viability of informational molecules like RNA (even silicon based variants) vanishes above around 60-70C.
> This simply isn't true. I don't know where you absorbed such a dumb and naive idea
Lol. The fermi paradox is not my idea, neither is the great filter as one the possible explanations. But the presumption in both is that we are not alone as intelligent life, not to mention simple life.
You mention the goldilocks theory, which indeed states that life probably has an incredibly thin temperature band in which it survives. But that just means life is unlikely on most planets, which means almost nothing in infinite space and time.
The fact life started once, makes it likely it has done so before us and will keep doing so. When I say time doesn't matter, I mean it could take billions of eons, and in the context of the universe that doesn't matter.
Lol. The fermi paradox is not my idea, neither is the great filter as one the possible explanations. But the presumption in both is that we are not alone as intelligent life, not to mention simple life.
You mention the goldilocks theory, which indeed states that life probably has an incredibly thin temperature band in which it survives. But that just means life is unlikely on most planets, which means almost nothing in infinite space and time.
The fact life started once, makes it likely it has done so before us and will keep doing so. When I say time doesn't matter, I mean it could take billions of eons, and in the context of the universe that doesn't matter.
There is no actual evidence of an infinite universe.
If anything the most likely situation is finite but comtinuosly expanding.
> The fact life started once, makes it likely it has done so before us and will keep doing so. When I say time doesn't matter, I mean it could take billions of eons, and in the context of the universe that doesn't matter.
This is still entirely wrong, on the basis of basic thermodynamic principles that are relatively well empirically supported.
Even if life has emerged before us, the probability of it happening again only decrease over time.
And also: low probability in finite domain doesn't magically imply high probability in an infinite domain. That's not how math works.
If anything the most likely situation is finite but comtinuosly expanding.
> The fact life started once, makes it likely it has done so before us and will keep doing so. When I say time doesn't matter, I mean it could take billions of eons, and in the context of the universe that doesn't matter.
This is still entirely wrong, on the basis of basic thermodynamic principles that are relatively well empirically supported.
Even if life has emerged before us, the probability of it happening again only decrease over time.
And also: low probability in finite domain doesn't magically imply high probability in an infinite domain. That's not how math works.
> There is no actual evidence of an infinite universe.
The drake equation and fermi account for that, using something like "The universe has 10 million, million, million suns".
Most of these ideas are probabilistic based on sizes that are just immense beyond comprehension. But I still find them more grounded than the pre-Copernican hubris that we are somehow central to all this.
> And also: low probability in finite domain doesn't magically imply high probability in an infinite domain. That's not how math works
How do you figure that?
The drake equation and fermi account for that, using something like "The universe has 10 million, million, million suns".
Most of these ideas are probabilistic based on sizes that are just immense beyond comprehension. But I still find them more grounded than the pre-Copernican hubris that we are somehow central to all this.
> And also: low probability in finite domain doesn't magically imply high probability in an infinite domain. That's not how math works
How do you figure that?
A vanishingly small probability on a finite sample still implies nothing beyond a vanishingly small probability over an infinite population.
To analogize: the vanishingly unlikely probability of landing a dart precisely in the center of the bullseye on a finitely sized dartboard implies nothing more than the same for an infinitely large dartboard.
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely (in particular the mathematical concept of "almost never")
To analogize: the vanishingly unlikely probability of landing a dart precisely in the center of the bullseye on a finitely sized dartboard implies nothing more than the same for an infinitely large dartboard.
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely (in particular the mathematical concept of "almost never")
> See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely (in particular the mathematical concept of "almost never")
You're confused here, did you read the mathematical definition of your own article?
It has nothing to do with what you think, it starts with the presumption of P(E) = 1 or P(E) = 0 for almost never.
That's not what we are talking about with small probabilities.
You're confused here, did you read the mathematical definition of your own article?
It has nothing to do with what you think, it starts with the presumption of P(E) = 1 or P(E) = 0 for almost never.
That's not what we are talking about with small probabilities.
I mean, as long as our economy is going great then why does it matter? /s
I feel like it's kinda the opposite. Tesla recently graduated from EV maker to car maker. There's honestly no car currently on the market that matches the Model 3 in its price range, whether electric or not. Acceleration and comfort features are nearly unmatched at the prices (in Europe at least). Sure, there's something to be gained in road noise and build quality, but the cars are incredible. I feel like investors are finally seeing this with, for example, NFL players explaining how Tesla is their current go to car and it becoming a status symbol.
Investors have been too stuck on the environmentally friendly thing to see that they make great cars and that's not even the only thing they do.
Investors have been too stuck on the environmentally friendly thing to see that they make great cars and that's not even the only thing they do.
Nice try, Elon. We all know it's you.
"Across a band of countries stretching from Norway to Russia, temperatures were an unprecedented 6C above the same 30-year benchmark, "
if you have that sort of deviation its hard to make meaningful statements about the longer term changes, it seems to me
if you have that sort of deviation its hard to make meaningful statements about the longer term changes, it seems to me
An increase in variation is by definition an extremely statistically significant change in behavior. Most families of distributions have two dimensions: mean and variance.
And not just under expectation but in general.
And not just under expectation but in general.
They are using a 30 year range only which is meaningless.
The raw data ALWAYS speaks for itself — out of the 50 U.S. state record high temperatures, 23 were set during the 1930s, while 36 occurred prior to 1960. There’s barely been a handful of record high temperatures broken in the last 3 decades out of 50 states:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/scec/records/all/tmax
Edit: I am getting quite a few downvotes even though I linked to scientific data. Please let me know what the downvote is for, otherwise it’s disappointing a scientific community doesn’t want to engage in poking holes in the data.
The raw data ALWAYS speaks for itself — out of the 50 U.S. state record high temperatures, 23 were set during the 1930s, while 36 occurred prior to 1960. There’s barely been a handful of record high temperatures broken in the last 3 decades out of 50 states:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/scec/records/all/tmax
Edit: I am getting quite a few downvotes even though I linked to scientific data. Please let me know what the downvote is for, otherwise it’s disappointing a scientific community doesn’t want to engage in poking holes in the data.
> Please let me know what the downvote is for
It's for not knowing what the word "globally" means. That is a pretty big hole in your own data.
Look at the equivalent data where it exists for South America, Europe, Africa or Asia. The majority have records set in the last 30 years.
Of course, none of the Northern hemisphere countries set their all-time record temperature in January so all-time records in the US are pretty irrelevant to the article.
It's for not knowing what the word "globally" means. That is a pretty big hole in your own data.
Look at the equivalent data where it exists for South America, Europe, Africa or Asia. The majority have records set in the last 30 years.
Of course, none of the Northern hemisphere countries set their all-time record temperature in January so all-time records in the US are pretty irrelevant to the article.
My point is that a 30 year period is meaningless when majority of records we see were broken much before that and the number of records being broken has gone down significantly as per NOAA data.
The number of records being broken has not gone down if you include parts of the world that are not the USA (they exist!)
The record was broken in 20 of the 50 countries in Europe in the last 10 years alone. Only 12 still have records standing from more than 30 years ago.
About half of records in Africa were broken in the last 20 years.
The majority of records in Asia and South America were broken in the last 20 years.
Anyway, this article is about temperatures in January, which means that all-time high temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere are irrelevant. Would it be meaningless if California hit 130°F in January just because it was once slightly hotter in July?
The record was broken in 20 of the 50 countries in Europe in the last 10 years alone. Only 12 still have records standing from more than 30 years ago.
About half of records in Africa were broken in the last 20 years.
The majority of records in Asia and South America were broken in the last 20 years.
Anyway, this article is about temperatures in January, which means that all-time high temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere are irrelevant. Would it be meaningless if California hit 130°F in January just because it was once slightly hotter in July?
> They are using a 30 year range only which is meaningless.
> There’s barely been a handful of record high temperatures broken in the last 3 decades out of 50 states
If they were talking about maximum recorded temperatures, your argument would've made sense.
However, they're talking about average temperatures, for which a 30 year range is certainly not meaningless.
> There’s barely been a handful of record high temperatures broken in the last 3 decades out of 50 states
If they were talking about maximum recorded temperatures, your argument would've made sense.
However, they're talking about average temperatures, for which a 30 year range is certainly not meaningless.
Here’s the same data for the minimum temperature records broken:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/scec/records/all/tmin
Around 10 were broken in the last 3 decades which is more than the around 7 broken for the max temperatures. If more min records are broken, then I would expect the average to be going down not up.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/scec/records/all/tmin
Around 10 were broken in the last 3 decades which is more than the around 7 broken for the max temperatures. If more min records are broken, then I would expect the average to be going down not up.
> If more min records are broken, then I would expect the average to be going down not up.
You would expect so but the data about temperature anomalies suggests the opposite:
Annual 2019 Average Temperature Anomalies in USA: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/201913/supplemental/...
Global Temperature Anomaly Mapping at a glance: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/
Global Climate Summary in 2019 https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/global-climate-201912
You would expect so but the data about temperature anomalies suggests the opposite:
Annual 2019 Average Temperature Anomalies in USA: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/201913/supplemental/...
Global Temperature Anomaly Mapping at a glance: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/
Global Climate Summary in 2019 https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/global-climate-201912
Minimum records being broken can mean more variance causing outliers more frequently, wouldn't necessarily mean that they push the average down as they might be short events followed by a different weather pattern.
The disruption of the polar vortex drops temperature significantly across Northern Europe but it can be caused by the warming of the atmosphere so even though it can cause record lows it is a short lasted event and on average the temperature is still going up.
That is also a side-effect of climate change, more powerful bursts of extreme weather.
The disruption of the polar vortex drops temperature significantly across Northern Europe but it can be caused by the warming of the atmosphere so even though it can cause record lows it is a short lasted event and on average the temperature is still going up.
That is also a side-effect of climate change, more powerful bursts of extreme weather.
Interesting. It's definitely not the case in Europe:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weather_records#Europe
30 records in the last 15 years vs 18 in the previous 100+
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weather_records#Europe
30 records in the last 15 years vs 18 in the previous 100+
FYI the HN guidelines say:
> Please don't use uppercase for emphasis. If you want to emphasize a word or phrase, put asterisks around it and it will get italicized.
> Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
Possibly some of the downvotes are simply for not following the guidelines.
> Please don't use uppercase for emphasis. If you want to emphasize a word or phrase, put asterisks around it and it will get italicized.
> Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
Possibly some of the downvotes are simply for not following the guidelines.
[deleted]
It's an interesting dataset, but I feel that it lacks one relevant metric, which in our case is Temperature Anomaly.
I long for the day when I can sort datatables on such central websites.
At least the link I provided, the data should already be sorted and only listing the date when each date broke the max temperature record. Their FTP however does provide more detailed data from 1200 stations across US.
[deleted]
This is outlier journalism. The actual data is more informative (from December): https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-blended-mn...
On average the globe is warming. In a splotch of northeastern europe very much so. In other places, it's actually colder.