14 ms·

Climate Disruption Is Now Locked In. The Next Moves Will Be Crucial

136 points by ciconia 6y ago

aaron695 6y ago
I see the solution to Californians fires is upvoting stories about Climate Change, no need to even read it! Not like the old days when you had to work hard towards fixes to hard problems. Thank god for the internet. I also see California burning "Locked in" "Climate Disruption". A cynic might say that's a little coincidental it wasn't in Africa or somewhere boring, it's always the USA.
lightgreen 6y ago
Paywall and recent scandals about project 1619 secretive edits [1] prevent me from reading anything in this newspaper. [1] https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/09/22/1619-s22.html https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/09/22/1619-s22.html Edit: it’s not possible to trust a newspaper with reputation that bad. (Also, the story of doxxing Scott Alexander.)
- you_racist_fool 6y ago
  Your insipid whining about the 1619 project has nothing to do with this article on climate change.
  - lightgreen 6y ago
    Project 1619 has shown their lack of desire of being objective, in particular lack of their wish to admit mistakes. That article might be good, but I would have to fact check every statement, and still not be sure they did not hid some facts not fitting their narrative.
    - you_racist_fool 6y ago
      Have you finished grinding that axe yet?
ToJoh 6y ago
It is encouraging that this sort of article is upvoted on HN. Probably worth coming to terms with the fact that COVID19, GPT-3 and one's favourite flavour of Lisp maybe don't matter quite as much as the fact that much of the planet will likely be uninhabitable before many on HN reach middle age.
- zpeti 6y ago
  The IPCC predict 2 degree rise by 2050, and a 6% reduction in gbp growth, not gbp. That is hardly an uninhabitable world. It might be a very different world, with all sorts of new issues to deal with. But not uninhabitable.
  - drukenemo 6y ago
    IPCC claims have failed consistently overtime.
    - baq 6y ago
      yes, their worst case scenarios weren't bad enough for glaciers melting.
    - dvdkhlng 6y ago
      You mean that IPCC predictions based on climate models have been replaced by different predictions based on newer models as more data became available over time? Unfortunately (for us) it does look like newer predictions predict worse outcomes with higher confidence [1]. PS: yes scientific consensus changes over time as a function of available measurement data and understanding. That's not a sign of failure but of improved scientific insight. [1] https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/03/18/the-ipccs-worst-case-scenario/ https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/03/18/the-ipccs-worst-case...
    - esarbe 6y ago
      Yeah, that's very true. Things have pretty much been consistently worse than predicted.
  - 6y ago
jcroll 6y ago
Judging by covid I wonder if climate change will have to begin to affect every state, not just the coastal ones, before the U.S. has the political capital to take true action.
- donkeyd 6y ago
  Not just the US. There's currently only a single country that seems serious about reducing climate change, which is China (based purely on what they're saying). And looking at history, we always tend to only react when things impact all of us, or at least many of us. Some examples: - Vehicle safety - Smoking - Asbestos - Lead All of this stuff only got limited when it killed many people and even then a lot of proof was necessary to convince countries to do something.
  - RobertoG 6y ago
    A counterexample would be the ozone layer depletion, that should give us some hope, but it's true that the problem was orders of magnitude easier to solve.
    - EForEndeavour 6y ago
      The fact that ozone depletion was orders of magnitude easier to solve than climate change is precisely why it doesn't give me much hope. It's not a counterexample; it's a whole different level of problem.
  - jefftk 6y ago
    CFCs are a hopeful counterexample
    - baq 6y ago
      also pretty much the only... and it was relatively easy as viable replacements were available
      - 6y ago
throwaway230920 6y ago
It has become clear that a pandemic is the only way to handle climate change. Covid-19 is not enough. It needs to wipe out 40-60% of the world's population. This percentage should be even higher in the developed world, which is overwhelmingly responsible for most CO2 emissions. It shouldn't have to be this way, but humanity has had decades to get it's shit together and has failed relentlessly. It will continue to fail until it is too late. I hope a bioengineer / virologist / communicable disease specialist reads this and does what needs to be done.
Aachen 6y ago
Some pop up appears after scrolling down the first few lines of the article. Ctrl+a, ctrl+c: --- America is now under siege by climate change in ways that scientists have warned about for years. But there is a second part to their admonition: Decades of growing crisis are already locked into the global ecosystem and cannot be reversed. This means the kinds of cascading disasters occurring today — drought in the West fueling historic wildfires that send smoke all the way to the East Coast, or parades of tropical storms lining up across the Atlantic to march destructively toward North America — are no longer features of some dystopian future. They are the here and now, worsening for the next generation and perhaps longer, depending on humanity’s willingness to take action. “I’ve been labeled an alarmist,” said Peter Kalmus, a climate scientist in Los Angeles, where he and millions of others have inhaled dangerously high levels of smoke for weeks. “And I think it’s a lot harder for people to say that I’m being alarmist now.” Last month, before the skies over San Francisco turned a surreal orange, Death Valley reached 130 degrees Fahrenheit, the highest temperature ever measured on the planet. Dozens of people have perished from the heat in Phoenix, which in July suffered its hottest month on record, only to surpass that milestone in August. Conversations about climate change have broken into everyday life, to the top of the headlines and to center stage in the presidential campaign. The questions are profound and urgent. Can this be reversed? What can be done to minimize the looming dangers for the decades ahead? Will the destruction of recent weeks become a moment of reckoning, or just a blip in the news cycle? The Times spoke with two dozen climate experts, including scientists, economists, sociologists and policymakers, and their answers were by turns alarming, cynical and hopeful. “It’s as if we’ve been smoking a pack of cigarettes a day for decades” and the world is now feeling the effects, said Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist at Texas Tech University. But, she said, “we’re not dead yet.” Their most sobering message was that the world still hasn’t seen the worst of it. Gone is the climate of yesteryear, and there’s no going back. The effects of climate change evident today are the results of choices that countries made decades ago to keep pumping heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at ever-increasing rates despite warnings from scientists about the price to be paid. That price — more vicious heat waves, longer wildfire seasons, rising sea levels — is now irretrievably baked in. Nations, including the United States, have dithered so long in cutting emissions that progressively more global warming is assured for decades to come, even if efforts to shift away from fossil fuels were accelerated tomorrow. ‘Twice as Bad’ “What we’re seeing today, this year, is just a small harbinger of what we are likely to get,” said Jonathan Overpeck, a climate scientist at the University of Michigan. Things are on track to get “twice as bad” as they are now, he said, “if not worse.” Earth has already warmed roughly 1 degree Celsius, or 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, since the 19th century. The most optimistic proposals made by world governments to zero out emissions envision holding warming to below 2 degrees Celsius. Nations remain far from achieving those goals. Usually, each passing year’s records are framed by the past — the hottest temperatures ever observed, the biggest wildfires in decades. However, as Cristian Proistosescu, an assistant professor at the University of Illinois, noted on Twitter, it may be time to flip that chronological framing, and consider today the new starting point. “Don’t think of it as the warmest month of August in California in the last century,” he wrote. “Think of it as one of the coolest months of August in California in the next century.” Climate change is more a slope than a cliff, experts agreed. We’re still far from any sort of “game over” moment where it’s too late to act. There remains much that can be done to limit the damage to come, to brace against the coming megafires and superstorms and save lives and hold onto a thriving civilization. “We can certainly move in a direction that serves us a lot better,” said Stephen Pyne, an environmental historian and professor emeritus at Arizona State University. “It’s not that it’s out of our control. The whole thing is in our control.” It won’t be easy, particularly if past is prologue. ...
ilaksh 6y ago
I feel like they oversimplified a bit. There is plenty of evidence of global warming without making it seem mainly about the wildfires. Because certainly record temperatures and wildfires are evidence of global warming, but also a policy of fire supression has contributed. The fact that they didn't mention that and also didn't get into other evidence of global warming in much detail makes me feel that the article might have mainly been designed to manipulate Californians rather than make an honest and comprehensive argument for everyone.
- simion314 6y ago
  The article I read it addressed the fire suppression issues, building codes and future changes, maybe you missed it or I read something else.
  - ilaksh 6y ago
    It was actually just farther in than I read. Which again to me seems like it's a bad choice.
- Hammershaft 6y ago
  At this point the greatest hurdle to action on climate change is Republican obstruction backed by the apathy of the conservative base. I regularly see conservatives on /r/conservative use the lack of burn control and a rise in arson cases as talking points to dismiss these wildfires entirely. If an article like this is going to present a strong argument for climate action that can win over conservatives it will need to be scientifically precise and grapple specifically with conservative talking points. This NYT article did not even come close to meeting that bar, it confidently attributed complex multi factor phenomenon entirely to climate change without creating the groundwork of data & evidence needed to authoritatively establish those claims. When actors, politicians, and NYT journalists make dramatic claims and fail to meet that bar, then the intent backfires and only serves to entrench the common conservative belief that climate change is a product of liberal fear mongering. For an absolute masterclass on how to properly communicate about the science of climate change, and how to slowly win over moderate conservatives, I know of no better source than Potholer54. We can only hope that one day New York Times journalists will regularly exercise the scientific and journalistic diligence of this retired youtuber. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0x46-enxsA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0x46-enxsA - The cause of Australia’s bushfires – what the science says https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D99qI42KGB0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D99qI42KGB0 - A conservative solution to global warming (Part 1)
swebs 6y ago
Alright then. Let's start shutting down fossil fuel power plants and replace them with nuclear.
- antocv 6y ago
  Yes, lets hurry up this extinction event.
  - lightgreen 6y ago
    Even if we intentionally blow a nuclear power plant, it will not be an extinction event, not even close. But so far nuclear power statistically is safer than any other source (wind, solar, hydro, coal), deaths per Wh, including the worst events like Chernobyl. There’s no dark black magic inside nuclear power plant. It just burns uranium and heats water to spin turbines. Uranium burning happens all the time on Earth, in fact, if Uranium did not burn, the Earth would be much colder place. (Technically, it is not burning of course, it’s fission.)
    - willis936 6y ago
      Well, Chernobyl did narrowly miss a much worse outcome: poisoning the water table in a thousand mile radius with corium. There is a real threat of catastrophic outcomes with fission reactors that don’t exist with other reactors. These are issues that can be prevented, but the inherent danger cannot be denied.
      - lightgreen 6y ago
        > Chernobyl did narrowly miss a much worse outcome: poisoning the water table in a thousand mile radius with corium Poisoning water does not make extinction event. It would render some area unsuitable for living, big economic loss, so don’t operate knowingly flawed reactors, and don’t let Soviets operate nuclear reactors, and it will be fine. > the inherent danger cannot be denied As well as dangers of flying, taking a shower, operating a hydro power plant and everything else. Even accounting for these dangers, nuclear is the safest option.
NoblePublius 6y ago
How convenient this “climate change” thing excuses so many state government failures of land management. Climate change didnt stop anyone from clearing forests around LA or Sacramento, the Sierra Club did. Climate change didn’t cut CalFire’s budget or replace 90% of its trained firefighters with prison labor, CA’s state government did.
chrisco255 6y ago
We don't control the climate. We don't control the ocean currents or cycles. We don't control the clouds or cloud cover albedo. We don't control precipitation. We don't control deep sea geothermal venting. We don't control volcanic activity. We don't control solar cycles. We don't control trade winds or any winds for that matter. We don't control the climate.
- dvdkhlng 6y ago
  Just to counter some of your claims with publicly available sources: - We do control clouds and cloud cover albedo [1]. - Human-induced changes to composition of earth's athmosphere result in about 3 Watts of additional heating per square meter of earth's surface [2]. That's almost 1% of the normal solar heating, or > 2K of (eventual) equalibrium temperature increase, so maybe we should call that "climate control" after all? [1] https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/research/science_integrated_modeling/accri/media/Contrails%20And%20Induced%20Cirrus.pdf https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ap... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing
  - chrisco255 6y ago
    Cirrus clouds are an extremely small fraction of the overall surface area of clouds on planet earth. That is not an indication of controlling clouds. Clouds are the result of the condensation of water on particulates in the atmosphere. Over 65% of Earth's surface area is liquid water. Oceans have deep currents that fluctuate in cycles and influence climate dramatically and have done so for billions of years and before humans even existed. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/85843/cloudy-earth https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/85843/cloudy-earth This article by NASA covers that story well. "One study based on nearly a decade of satellite data estimated that about 67 percent of Earth’s surface is typically covered by clouds. This is especially the case over the oceans, where other research shows less than 10 percent of the sky is completely clear of clouds at any one time. Over land, 30 percent of skies are completely cloud free." Cirrus clouds from airplanes could slightly influence local conditions, but would not even come close to having a global effect. The magnitude of change is not significant when compared to the ocean cloud cover. At any rate, even something like cosmic ray flux can induce increase in cloud cover albedo as noted by Svensmark: http://apreat.ovh/henrik-svensmark-force-majeure-the-suns-role-in-climate-change-pdf/ http://apreat.ovh/henrik-svensmark-force-majeure-the-suns-ro... From above "(the net effect of clouds is to cool the Earth by about 20–30 W/m2)" That is, clouds have an order of magnitude higher effect than trace greenhouse gases. That means even a 10% change in average cloud cover would more than exceed (on the downside) any radiative forcing caused by greenhouse gases. And this makes sense when you think about it. Clouds are capable of almost completely reflecting solar energy back into space. This is where volcanism comes into play. When stratospheric injection of sulfates occurs from large volcanic explosions, an increase in cloud cover happens and a subsequent decrease in global temperatures occurs. This process we do not control, and volcanoes are perfectly capable of inducing ice ages on their own and we are powerless to stop that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer At any rate, NASA has admitted as much that our understanding and modeling of clouds and their effect on climate is extremely poor and that current climate models do not accurately account for their influence. Here's a great interview from JPL on that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ra9AFNco3lI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ra9AFNco3lI
fizzizist1 6y ago
Why was this article flagged? This is a really important issue.
- throwaway9d0291 6y ago
  It's off-topic for HN. From the guidelines: - "On-Topic: [...] anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity." - "Off-topic: [...] If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic." - "If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it. Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead. If you flag, please don't also comment that you did." Though I appreciate that I'm not paying much attention to the last point.
  - fizzizist1 6y ago
    I understand that it may satisfy the Off-topic requirement in that these natural disasters are typically covered on TV news, but I think (for me at least) that it does gratify one's intellectual curiosity. Climate change is based on complicated climate science and these articles that are written about it are describing all of the predictions of climate science coming true in front of our eyes. Its horrible to see, but intellectually, it is stimulating.
- adrianN 6y ago
  Almost all climate change articles get flagged on HN.
Hammershaft 6y ago
At this point the greatest hurdle to action on climate change is Republican obstruction backed by the apathy of the conservative base. I regularly see conservatives on /r/conservative use the lack of burn control and a rise in arson cases as talking points to dismiss these wildfires entirely. If an article like this is going to present a strong argument for climate action that can win over conservatives it will need to be scientifically precise and grapple specifically with conservative talking points. This NYT article did not even come close to meeting that bar, it confidently attributed complex multi factor phenomenon entirely to climate change without creating the groundwork of data & evidence needed to authoritatively establish those claims. When actors, politicians, and NYT journalists make dramatic claims and fail to meet that bar, then the intent backfires and only serves to entrench the common conservative belief that climate change is a product of liberal fear mongering. For an absolute masterclass on how to properly communicate about the science of climate change, and how to slowly win over moderate conservatives, I know of no better source than Potholer54. We can only hope that one day New York Times journalists will regularly exercise the scientific and journalistic diligence of this retired youtuber. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0x46-enxsA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0x46-enxsA - The cause of Australia’s bushfires – what the science says https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D99qI42KGB0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D99qI42KGB0 - A conservative solution to global warming (Part 1)
darepublic 6y ago
Revolution in the back. Pay wall in the front

136 points by ciconia 6y ago

I see the solution to Californians fires is upvoting stories about Climate Change, no need to even read it! Not like the old days when you had to work hard towards fixes to hard problems. Thank god for the internet. I also see California burning "Locked in" "Climate Disruption". A cynic might say that's a little coincidental it wasn't in Africa or somewhere boring, it's always the USA.

lightgreen 6y ago

Paywall and recent scandals about project 1619 secretive edits [1] prevent me from reading anything in this newspaper. [1] https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/09/22/1619-s22.html https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/09/22/1619-s22.html Edit: it’s not possible to trust a newspaper with reputation that bad. (Also, the story of doxxing Scott Alexander.)

you_racist_fool 6y ago
Your insipid whining about the 1619 project has nothing to do with this article on climate change.
- lightgreen 6y ago
  Project 1619 has shown their lack of desire of being objective, in particular lack of their wish to admit mistakes. That article might be good, but I would have to fact check every statement, and still not be sure they did not hid some facts not fitting their narrative.
  - you_racist_fool 6y ago
    Have you finished grinding that axe yet?

ToJoh 6y ago

It is encouraging that this sort of article is upvoted on HN. Probably worth coming to terms with the fact that COVID19, GPT-3 and one's favourite flavour of Lisp maybe don't matter quite as much as the fact that much of the planet will likely be uninhabitable before many on HN reach middle age.

zpeti 6y ago
The IPCC predict 2 degree rise by 2050, and a 6% reduction in gbp growth, not gbp. That is hardly an uninhabitable world. It might be a very different world, with all sorts of new issues to deal with. But not uninhabitable.
- drukenemo 6y ago
  IPCC claims have failed consistently overtime.
  - baq 6y ago
    yes, their worst case scenarios weren't bad enough for glaciers melting.
  - dvdkhlng 6y ago
    You mean that IPCC predictions based on climate models have been replaced by different predictions based on newer models as more data became available over time? Unfortunately (for us) it does look like newer predictions predict worse outcomes with higher confidence [1]. PS: yes scientific consensus changes over time as a function of available measurement data and understanding. That's not a sign of failure but of improved scientific insight. [1] https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/03/18/the-ipccs-worst-case-scenario/ https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/03/18/the-ipccs-worst-case...
  - esarbe 6y ago
    Yeah, that's very true. Things have pretty much been consistently worse than predicted.
- 6y ago

jcroll 6y ago

Judging by covid I wonder if climate change will have to begin to affect every state, not just the coastal ones, before the U.S. has the political capital to take true action.

donkeyd 6y ago
Not just the US. There's currently only a single country that seems serious about reducing climate change, which is China (based purely on what they're saying). And looking at history, we always tend to only react when things impact all of us, or at least many of us. Some examples: - Vehicle safety - Smoking - Asbestos - Lead All of this stuff only got limited when it killed many people and even then a lot of proof was necessary to convince countries to do something.
- RobertoG 6y ago
  A counterexample would be the ozone layer depletion, that should give us some hope, but it's true that the problem was orders of magnitude easier to solve.
  - EForEndeavour 6y ago
    The fact that ozone depletion was orders of magnitude easier to solve than climate change is precisely why it doesn't give me much hope. It's not a counterexample; it's a whole different level of problem.
- jefftk 6y ago
  CFCs are a hopeful counterexample
  - baq 6y ago
    also pretty much the only... and it was relatively easy as viable replacements were available
    - 6y ago

throwaway230920 6y ago

It has become clear that a pandemic is the only way to handle climate change. Covid-19 is not enough. It needs to wipe out 40-60% of the world's population. This percentage should be even higher in the developed world, which is overwhelmingly responsible for most CO2 emissions. It shouldn't have to be this way, but humanity has had decades to get it's shit together and has failed relentlessly. It will continue to fail until it is too late. I hope a bioengineer / virologist / communicable disease specialist reads this and does what needs to be done.

Aachen 6y ago

Some pop up appears after scrolling down the first few lines of the article. Ctrl+a, ctrl+c: --- America is now under siege by climate change in ways that scientists have warned about for years. But there is a second part to their admonition: Decades of growing crisis are already locked into the global ecosystem and cannot be reversed. This means the kinds of cascading disasters occurring today — drought in the West fueling historic wildfires that send smoke all the way to the East Coast, or parades of tropical storms lining up across the Atlantic to march destructively toward North America — are no longer features of some dystopian future. They are the here and now, worsening for the next generation and perhaps longer, depending on humanity’s willingness to take action. “I’ve been labeled an alarmist,” said Peter Kalmus, a climate scientist in Los Angeles, where he and millions of others have inhaled dangerously high levels of smoke for weeks. “And I think it’s a lot harder for people to say that I’m being alarmist now.” Last month, before the skies over San Francisco turned a surreal orange, Death Valley reached 130 degrees Fahrenheit, the highest temperature ever measured on the planet. Dozens of people have perished from the heat in Phoenix, which in July suffered its hottest month on record, only to surpass that milestone in August. Conversations about climate change have broken into everyday life, to the top of the headlines and to center stage in the presidential campaign. The questions are profound and urgent. Can this be reversed? What can be done to minimize the looming dangers for the decades ahead? Will the destruction of recent weeks become a moment of reckoning, or just a blip in the news cycle? The Times spoke with two dozen climate experts, including scientists, economists, sociologists and policymakers, and their answers were by turns alarming, cynical and hopeful. “It’s as if we’ve been smoking a pack of cigarettes a day for decades” and the world is now feeling the effects, said Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist at Texas Tech University. But, she said, “we’re not dead yet.” Their most sobering message was that the world still hasn’t seen the worst of it. Gone is the climate of yesteryear, and there’s no going back. The effects of climate change evident today are the results of choices that countries made decades ago to keep pumping heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at ever-increasing rates despite warnings from scientists about the price to be paid. That price — more vicious heat waves, longer wildfire seasons, rising sea levels — is now irretrievably baked in. Nations, including the United States, have dithered so long in cutting emissions that progressively more global warming is assured for decades to come, even if efforts to shift away from fossil fuels were accelerated tomorrow. ‘Twice as Bad’ “What we’re seeing today, this year, is just a small harbinger of what we are likely to get,” said Jonathan Overpeck, a climate scientist at the University of Michigan. Things are on track to get “twice as bad” as they are now, he said, “if not worse.” Earth has already warmed roughly 1 degree Celsius, or 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, since the 19th century. The most optimistic proposals made by world governments to zero out emissions envision holding warming to below 2 degrees Celsius. Nations remain far from achieving those goals. Usually, each passing year’s records are framed by the past — the hottest temperatures ever observed, the biggest wildfires in decades. However, as Cristian Proistosescu, an assistant professor at the University of Illinois, noted on Twitter, it may be time to flip that chronological framing, and consider today the new starting point. “Don’t think of it as the warmest month of August in California in the last century,” he wrote. “Think of it as one of the coolest months of August in California in the next century.” Climate change is more a slope than a cliff, experts agreed. We’re still far from any sort of “game over” moment where it’s too late to act. There remains much that can be done to limit the damage to come, to brace against the coming megafires and superstorms and save lives and hold onto a thriving civilization. “We can certainly move in a direction that serves us a lot better,” said Stephen Pyne, an environmental historian and professor emeritus at Arizona State University. “It’s not that it’s out of our control. The whole thing is in our control.” It won’t be easy, particularly if past is prologue. ...

ilaksh 6y ago

I feel like they oversimplified a bit. There is plenty of evidence of global warming without making it seem mainly about the wildfires. Because certainly record temperatures and wildfires are evidence of global warming, but also a policy of fire supression has contributed. The fact that they didn't mention that and also didn't get into other evidence of global warming in much detail makes me feel that the article might have mainly been designed to manipulate Californians rather than make an honest and comprehensive argument for everyone.

simion314 6y ago
The article I read it addressed the fire suppression issues, building codes and future changes, maybe you missed it or I read something else.
- ilaksh 6y ago
  It was actually just farther in than I read. Which again to me seems like it's a bad choice.
Hammershaft 6y ago
At this point the greatest hurdle to action on climate change is Republican obstruction backed by the apathy of the conservative base. I regularly see conservatives on /r/conservative use the lack of burn control and a rise in arson cases as talking points to dismiss these wildfires entirely. If an article like this is going to present a strong argument for climate action that can win over conservatives it will need to be scientifically precise and grapple specifically with conservative talking points. This NYT article did not even come close to meeting that bar, it confidently attributed complex multi factor phenomenon entirely to climate change without creating the groundwork of data & evidence needed to authoritatively establish those claims. When actors, politicians, and NYT journalists make dramatic claims and fail to meet that bar, then the intent backfires and only serves to entrench the common conservative belief that climate change is a product of liberal fear mongering. For an absolute masterclass on how to properly communicate about the science of climate change, and how to slowly win over moderate conservatives, I know of no better source than Potholer54. We can only hope that one day New York Times journalists will regularly exercise the scientific and journalistic diligence of this retired youtuber. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0x46-enxsA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0x46-enxsA - The cause of Australia’s bushfires – what the science says https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D99qI42KGB0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D99qI42KGB0 - A conservative solution to global warming (Part 1)

swebs 6y ago

Alright then. Let's start shutting down fossil fuel power plants and replace them with nuclear.

antocv 6y ago
Yes, lets hurry up this extinction event.
- lightgreen 6y ago
  Even if we intentionally blow a nuclear power plant, it will not be an extinction event, not even close. But so far nuclear power statistically is safer than any other source (wind, solar, hydro, coal), deaths per Wh, including the worst events like Chernobyl. There’s no dark black magic inside nuclear power plant. It just burns uranium and heats water to spin turbines. Uranium burning happens all the time on Earth, in fact, if Uranium did not burn, the Earth would be much colder place. (Technically, it is not burning of course, it’s fission.)
  - willis936 6y ago
    Well, Chernobyl did narrowly miss a much worse outcome: poisoning the water table in a thousand mile radius with corium. There is a real threat of catastrophic outcomes with fission reactors that don’t exist with other reactors. These are issues that can be prevented, but the inherent danger cannot be denied.
    - lightgreen 6y ago
      > Chernobyl did narrowly miss a much worse outcome: poisoning the water table in a thousand mile radius with corium Poisoning water does not make extinction event. It would render some area unsuitable for living, big economic loss, so don’t operate knowingly flawed reactors, and don’t let Soviets operate nuclear reactors, and it will be fine. > the inherent danger cannot be denied As well as dangers of flying, taking a shower, operating a hydro power plant and everything else. Even accounting for these dangers, nuclear is the safest option.

NoblePublius 6y ago

How convenient this “climate change” thing excuses so many state government failures of land management. Climate change didnt stop anyone from clearing forests around LA or Sacramento, the Sierra Club did. Climate change didn’t cut CalFire’s budget or replace 90% of its trained firefighters with prison labor, CA’s state government did.

chrisco255 6y ago

We don't control the climate. We don't control the ocean currents or cycles. We don't control the clouds or cloud cover albedo. We don't control precipitation. We don't control deep sea geothermal venting. We don't control volcanic activity. We don't control solar cycles. We don't control trade winds or any winds for that matter. We don't control the climate.

dvdkhlng 6y ago
Just to counter some of your claims with publicly available sources: - We do control clouds and cloud cover albedo [1]. - Human-induced changes to composition of earth's athmosphere result in about 3 Watts of additional heating per square meter of earth's surface [2]. That's almost 1% of the normal solar heating, or > 2K of (eventual) equalibrium temperature increase, so maybe we should call that "climate control" after all? [1] https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/research/science_integrated_modeling/accri/media/Contrails%20And%20Induced%20Cirrus.pdf https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ap... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing
- chrisco255 6y ago
  Cirrus clouds are an extremely small fraction of the overall surface area of clouds on planet earth. That is not an indication of controlling clouds. Clouds are the result of the condensation of water on particulates in the atmosphere. Over 65% of Earth's surface area is liquid water. Oceans have deep currents that fluctuate in cycles and influence climate dramatically and have done so for billions of years and before humans even existed. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/85843/cloudy-earth https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/85843/cloudy-earth This article by NASA covers that story well. "One study based on nearly a decade of satellite data estimated that about 67 percent of Earth’s surface is typically covered by clouds. This is especially the case over the oceans, where other research shows less than 10 percent of the sky is completely clear of clouds at any one time. Over land, 30 percent of skies are completely cloud free." Cirrus clouds from airplanes could slightly influence local conditions, but would not even come close to having a global effect. The magnitude of change is not significant when compared to the ocean cloud cover. At any rate, even something like cosmic ray flux can induce increase in cloud cover albedo as noted by Svensmark: http://apreat.ovh/henrik-svensmark-force-majeure-the-suns-role-in-climate-change-pdf/ http://apreat.ovh/henrik-svensmark-force-majeure-the-suns-ro... From above "(the net effect of clouds is to cool the Earth by about 20–30 W/m2)" That is, clouds have an order of magnitude higher effect than trace greenhouse gases. That means even a 10% change in average cloud cover would more than exceed (on the downside) any radiative forcing caused by greenhouse gases. And this makes sense when you think about it. Clouds are capable of almost completely reflecting solar energy back into space. This is where volcanism comes into play. When stratospheric injection of sulfates occurs from large volcanic explosions, an increase in cloud cover happens and a subsequent decrease in global temperatures occurs. This process we do not control, and volcanoes are perfectly capable of inducing ice ages on their own and we are powerless to stop that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer At any rate, NASA has admitted as much that our understanding and modeling of clouds and their effect on climate is extremely poor and that current climate models do not accurately account for their influence. Here's a great interview from JPL on that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ra9AFNco3lI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ra9AFNco3lI

fizzizist1 6y ago

Why was this article flagged? This is a really important issue.

throwaway9d0291 6y ago
It's off-topic for HN. From the guidelines: - "On-Topic: [...] anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity." - "Off-topic: [...] If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic." - "If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it. Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead. If you flag, please don't also comment that you did." Though I appreciate that I'm not paying much attention to the last point.
- fizzizist1 6y ago
  I understand that it may satisfy the Off-topic requirement in that these natural disasters are typically covered on TV news, but I think (for me at least) that it does gratify one's intellectual curiosity. Climate change is based on complicated climate science and these articles that are written about it are describing all of the predictions of climate science coming true in front of our eyes. Its horrible to see, but intellectually, it is stimulating.
adrianN 6y ago
Almost all climate change articles get flagged on HN.

Hammershaft 6y ago

At this point the greatest hurdle to action on climate change is Republican obstruction backed by the apathy of the conservative base. I regularly see conservatives on /r/conservative use the lack of burn control and a rise in arson cases as talking points to dismiss these wildfires entirely. If an article like this is going to present a strong argument for climate action that can win over conservatives it will need to be scientifically precise and grapple specifically with conservative talking points. This NYT article did not even come close to meeting that bar, it confidently attributed complex multi factor phenomenon entirely to climate change without creating the groundwork of data & evidence needed to authoritatively establish those claims. When actors, politicians, and NYT journalists make dramatic claims and fail to meet that bar, then the intent backfires and only serves to entrench the common conservative belief that climate change is a product of liberal fear mongering. For an absolute masterclass on how to properly communicate about the science of climate change, and how to slowly win over moderate conservatives, I know of no better source than Potholer54. We can only hope that one day New York Times journalists will regularly exercise the scientific and journalistic diligence of this retired youtuber. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0x46-enxsA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0x46-enxsA - The cause of Australia’s bushfires – what the science says https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D99qI42KGB0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D99qI42KGB0 - A conservative solution to global warming (Part 1)

darepublic 6y ago

Revolution in the back. Pay wall in the front