5 ms·

It's just not that easy. We also have 14% more green vegetation today than 30 years ago. The climate system is one endless positive negative feedback system and

It's just not that easy. We also have 14% more green vegetation today than 30 years ago. The climate system is one endless positive negative feedback system and we don't have enough data to say anything truly conclusive other than the climate is changing and things are getting hotter. Anyone claiming they know how this is going to turn out on either side are simply lying or are trapped in some ideological self-delusion. We have no way of knowing. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything but just that what we should do might not be ignoring the reality of a majority of this world who are not rich enough to install solar panels on their roofs. With regards to the Pascals wager argument again I am more worried about a meteor hitting us and that brings us back to the discussion again about how to ensure growth which pays for technological advancements and helps more people get out of poverty. Clean energy isn't cheap, it's subsidized heavily (yes other energy forms are too) and it's just not realistic for most of the world to use solar cells or wind as they don't have the infrastructure at all to support unreliable energy sources. My personal belief is that we should assume the climate is changing and then use that to build solutions rather than endless and meaningless debates about whether climate change is true or not which brings us nowhere and doesn't change the climate. If you believe things are going to be bad then make a company that deals with the things you believe are most problematic. If you believe the sea levels are rising the build solutions to deal with that if you believe methane is going to suffocate us then figure out how we can encapsulate it.

Retric 8y ago
You can say the same thing about dropping a ball. Philosophically I have no way of knowing what will happen. However, science is far from useless when making predictions. PS: All forms of energy are currently subsidized. Yet, even without subsidies renewable are currently cheaper than coal in many possibly most areas.
- ThomPete 8y ago
  I agree but again then we are back to Pascals Wager. I consider meteor hit more dangerous and human flourishing more important than climate change for the reasons I oulined.
  - polotics 8y ago
    Adequating human flourishing with our current CO2 output, discounted at zero while the measurable ongoing and certain future costs mount up, is not fit for a hacker. Systems are real things, no matter what defending your entitlements demands. Good luck with the climate.
    - ThomPete 8y ago
      Is that what I wrote?
      - polotics 8y ago
        Close enough I think: setting up a false analogy between climates and meteors is an argument against action. Packaging this in seductive can-do arguments for the HN crowd does not change the reality of the global predicament (not problem) we are in. The maximum commitment to R&D and the belt tightening that are both not happening now would probably not be enough to avoid major global disruption.
        ThomPete 8y ago
        First of all. Its not a false analogy at all. Meteors have struck before and eradicated almost all life. Climate have been hotter than it is right now and didn't have the same effect. Second of all I didn't mention anything about not doing anything I specifically have stated the opposite. The fact that you will straight out lie about what I said shows your true colors. Have a good day.
  - Retric 8y ago
    Risk is dependent on probability not just outcome. The odds of a major asteroid hitting in the next 50 years is under 1 in 1,000,000 so it's not worth spending much effort preventing. Climate change is close to 100% certain so it's worth spending vastly more effort preventing relative to the downsides. Really though, I am talking about spending well under 1/1,000th US GDP. So, that's worth it even if climate change is bad, but not devastating.
sethrin 8y ago
> The climate system is one endless positive negative feedback system and we don't have enough data to say anything truly conclusive other than the climate is changing and things are getting hotter. The no-feedback warming per doubling of CO2 is 3.7 W/m^2, which is held to be roughly equivalent to 1 degree of global temperature. There are some fairly readily ascertainable facts about climate change, sufficient to demonstrate that it is happening, and that it is caused by human CO2 emissions. The Earth is a complex system, but the critical effects are at the top of the atmosphere, which is much less complex. The lower bound for the warming effects is consequently very well known. And it's not so much the case that there are large quantities of this other well-known greenhouse gas lying around, and more like we misnamed this planet. There is uncertainty when trying to model anything, but I'm afraid at this point the "not a serious problem" warming scenarios have been ruled out.
- fauigerzigerk 8y ago
  These problems are definitely going to be serious. But how serious they will be and whether or not all the doom and gloom is justified depends on how our societies react to the challenges. It depends on how quickly we can develop technology and make it available to everyone. It depends on how quickly people can adapt to migration situations. It depends on countless non linear interactions that are unpredictable. I think what we can say is that the pace of change is absolutely crucial. If land is lost to deserts or to the sea at a pace noticable only by asking your great grand parents, then I think we're good. But if a billion people have to move within 20 or 30 years because large poor cities can no longer be defended against the sea or because technology to deal with desertification is only available to rich countries then I fear the gloom and doom is more than justified.
  - TooBrokeToBeg 8y ago
    > But if a billion people have to move within 20 or 30 years because large poor cities can no longer be defended against the sea or because technology to deal with desertification That seems perfectly reasonable. Nowhere near doom and gloom. There's no doom there, that I can see. Moving a billion people is not that big of a deal, as long as there is incentive. The idea that "the sea" will push people around has been going on forever and doesn't cause mass migrations in terms of the earth. It's the food and distribution a population has to worry about that will cause trouble. Everything else is well within human abilities to mitigate (even when average lifespans decrease by a few decades).

Retric 8y ago

You can say the same thing about dropping a ball. Philosophically I have no way of knowing what will happen. However, science is far from useless when making predictions. PS: All forms of energy are currently subsidized. Yet, even without subsidies renewable are currently cheaper than coal in many possibly most areas.

ThomPete 8y ago
I agree but again then we are back to Pascals Wager. I consider meteor hit more dangerous and human flourishing more important than climate change for the reasons I oulined.
- polotics 8y ago
  Adequating human flourishing with our current CO2 output, discounted at zero while the measurable ongoing and certain future costs mount up, is not fit for a hacker. Systems are real things, no matter what defending your entitlements demands. Good luck with the climate.
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    Is that what I wrote?
    - polotics 8y ago
      Close enough I think: setting up a false analogy between climates and meteors is an argument against action. Packaging this in seductive can-do arguments for the HN crowd does not change the reality of the global predicament (not problem) we are in. The maximum commitment to R&D and the belt tightening that are both not happening now would probably not be enough to avoid major global disruption.
      - ThomPete 8y ago
        First of all. Its not a false analogy at all. Meteors have struck before and eradicated almost all life. Climate have been hotter than it is right now and didn't have the same effect. Second of all I didn't mention anything about not doing anything I specifically have stated the opposite. The fact that you will straight out lie about what I said shows your true colors. Have a good day.
- Retric 8y ago
  Risk is dependent on probability not just outcome. The odds of a major asteroid hitting in the next 50 years is under 1 in 1,000,000 so it's not worth spending much effort preventing. Climate change is close to 100% certain so it's worth spending vastly more effort preventing relative to the downsides. Really though, I am talking about spending well under 1/1,000th US GDP. So, that's worth it even if climate change is bad, but not devastating.

sethrin 8y ago

> The climate system is one endless positive negative feedback system and we don't have enough data to say anything truly conclusive other than the climate is changing and things are getting hotter. The no-feedback warming per doubling of CO2 is 3.7 W/m^2, which is held to be roughly equivalent to 1 degree of global temperature. There are some fairly readily ascertainable facts about climate change, sufficient to demonstrate that it is happening, and that it is caused by human CO2 emissions. The Earth is a complex system, but the critical effects are at the top of the atmosphere, which is much less complex. The lower bound for the warming effects is consequently very well known. And it's not so much the case that there are large quantities of this other well-known greenhouse gas lying around, and more like we misnamed this planet. There is uncertainty when trying to model anything, but I'm afraid at this point the "not a serious problem" warming scenarios have been ruled out.

fauigerzigerk 8y ago
These problems are definitely going to be serious. But how serious they will be and whether or not all the doom and gloom is justified depends on how our societies react to the challenges. It depends on how quickly we can develop technology and make it available to everyone. It depends on how quickly people can adapt to migration situations. It depends on countless non linear interactions that are unpredictable. I think what we can say is that the pace of change is absolutely crucial. If land is lost to deserts or to the sea at a pace noticable only by asking your great grand parents, then I think we're good. But if a billion people have to move within 20 or 30 years because large poor cities can no longer be defended against the sea or because technology to deal with desertification is only available to rich countries then I fear the gloom and doom is more than justified.
- TooBrokeToBeg 8y ago
  > But if a billion people have to move within 20 or 30 years because large poor cities can no longer be defended against the sea or because technology to deal with desertification That seems perfectly reasonable. Nowhere near doom and gloom. There's no doom there, that I can see. Moving a billion people is not that big of a deal, as long as there is incentive. The idea that "the sea" will push people around has been going on forever and doesn't cause mass migrations in terms of the earth. It's the food and distribution a population has to worry about that will cause trouble. Everything else is well within human abilities to mitigate (even when average lifespans decrease by a few decades).