4 ms·

What exactly is "the" "right" climate?

by nanis 5y ago

ceejayoz 5y ago
Defining "the one single right climate" is hard. Defining "this change is bad" is substantially easier. Wet bulb temperatures of 35 degrees C in areas with billions of people and poor power infrastructure to run AC is bad, for example.
- nanis 5y ago
  > Wet bulb temperatures of 35 degrees C in areas with billions of people I had to look up what that meant ... With this kind of nonsense being pushed around and with more than two decades of constant scary tales, no wonder the kids are nervous. I grew up without any air conditioning at all. Ever. In any building. Summer temperatures between 35 - 40 C with high humidity. I do not know what the "wet bulb" equivalent of that is, but it was warm, for sure. People will figure out how to deal with the weather. One of the most fun tourist attractions of my childhood was swimming/free diving around two thousand year old ruins under water. The changes of a bunch of self-interested central planners figuring out how to do what you want without killing you are nil.
  - s5300 5y ago
    Are you essentially saying that wet bulb is fake news because of your personal experience in which you didn't deal with wet bulb, especially on an extended timeframe? Do you believe that billions of people with poor infrastructure and no air conditioning are magically going to have infrastructure and air conditioning appear? There is a lot of strange posting going on in this thread for HN...
    - throwaway5752 5y ago
      There is a lot of strange posting going on in this thread for HN... You are sure right about that. Posts that are utterly lacking critical thinking, claims without evidence. It is embarrassing behavior for this forum. There is more data on this subject than possibly any other phenomenon on Earth, and visible, palpable change has occurred in recent memory.
    - nanis 5y ago
      > Are you essentially saying that wet bulb is fake news No. The comment I am responding to said: >> Wet bulb temperatures of 35 degrees C in areas with billions of people and poor power infrastructure to run AC is bad, for example The claim that something that has hitherto only been observed in extremely few circumstances for extremely brief periods of time will become commonplace requires strong proof.
      - ceejayoz 5y ago
        > The claim that something that has hitherto only been observed in extremely few circumstances for extremely brief periods of time will become commonplace requires strong proof. 1. Wikipedia gives examples of wet bulb temperatures already approaching the 35 degree threshold in the current climate. 2. Climate scientists believe the global average temperature will (continue to) rise. The logical conclusion is that we're more likely to exceed wet bulb temperatures of 35 degrees as temperatures climb. Some of the areas already prone to high heat and high humidity are densely populated, and some of those areas don't have the infrastructure to support AC for everyone.
  - jazzabeanie 5y ago
    From wikipedia: > Even heat-adapted people cannot carry out normal outdoor activities past a wet-bulb temperature of 32 °C (90 °F), equivalent to a heat index of 55 °C (130 °F). The theoretical limit to human survival for more than a few hours in the shade, even with unlimited water, is 35 °C (95 °F)
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    > I had to look up what that meant... ... and immediately had to reflexively reject it so it wouldn't sink in. > I do not know what the "wet bulb" equivalent of that is, but it was warm, for sure. It's fairly unlikely to have hit 35 a bunch, given that Wikipedia's table of places that've measured that temperature thus far has only ten places on it, and then "albeit too briefly and in too small a locality to cause fatalities".
    - nanis 5y ago
      > ... and immediately had to reflexively reject it so it wouldn't sink in. I am not convinced by the apocalyptic prophesy that billions of people will be living in 35 C wet bulb temperature soon ... If I were to be convinced that such a scenario is likely, you'd have to also convince me that creating a global system of central planning is the right thing to do which is what these NPR types want. Even carbon pricing and carbon markets, the least intrusive measure on the table, require some central authority to decide the right amount of CO2 to be emitted. Since anything and everything useful we do requires emitting CO2, that ties all our futures to central planning.
      - ceejayoz 5y ago
        > I am not convinced by the apocalyptic prophesy that billions of people will be living in 35 C wet bulb temperature soon... You didn't even know what it was 12 hours ago. "I had to look up what that meant..."
        nanis 5y ago
        Ignoring for a moment the nativist undertone of your comment, it is not unheard of for people to hear the term-of-art for a concept they already understand and have to look it up. It seems to me that once one realizes what a "wet bulb temperature of 35 C" means, it's only a hop, skip, and a jump to comprehend the immense vacuousness of your claim that billions of people will be regularly experiencing it. > poor power infrastructure to run AC is bad I agree. Let's not stand in the way of any developing nation building cheap, reliable power infrastructure along with cheap, reliable, flexible transportation infrastructure (aka roads and gas stations), so they too can travel in air-conditioned comfort from air-conditioned location to air-conditioned location. Oh, yes, that means not destroying economic wealth.
  - UncleMeat 5y ago
    > People will figure out how to deal with the weather. Wet bulb temperature has a very specific meaning for human anatomy. At that temperature, you cannot vent heat. There is no mechanism to deal with that weather. The only option is to die, and quickly. That is a direct consequence of our literal anatomy.
  - dagw 5y ago
    I do not know what the "wet bulb" equivalent of that is 40 deg c at 60% relative humidity is about 31 degrees "wet bulb". 35 deg c wet bulb is around 40 deg c at 95% relative humidity, or 45 deg c at 60% relative humidity. At 20% relative humidity a wet bulb temperature of 35 would mean an air temperature of almost 60.
NL807 5y ago
The one that does not result in ecological disaster.
- nanis 5y ago
  Which period of the earth's lifetime would you like to go back to?
  - NL807 5y ago
    What's your point though?
jbay808 5y ago
Probably somewhere in the middle range of this graph: https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/
- nanis 5y ago
  Yeah, about that average. ... You do understand the difference between smoothed decadal or even centennial averages versus much more precise and frequent thermometer measurements, right? Also, you do understand that the thermometer observations we have are highly selected based on where humans preferred to live, right? I might do an update on this video, but here are the locations with thermometers that made it in to GHCNv3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h95uvT67bNg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h95uvT67bNg
tfehring 5y ago
The fact that climate change is a problem doesn't imply that there's a "right" climate. The rapid rate of change itself is the problem - and particularly the fact that that rate of change is faster than organisms and systems can adequately adapt to. Atmospheric CO2 levels have previously, naturally, been higher than they are today. The most recent time that they were that high, the land on which most of our population's biggest cities were built was underwater. We could have just as easily built cities in an environment in which CO2 levels and temperatures were higher than they were in 1800, just by building farther back from today's coasts - but we didn't, so some cities will face massive costs to adapt, and others will simply go away. All of that is literally true for cities, but it's also true by analogy for organisms and natural ecosystems. We can't quantify the full magnitude of climate change's impacts on those ecosystems, but there's wisdom in risk aversion when dealing with highly uncertain situations.
- frabbit 5y ago
  the fact that that rate of change is faster than organisms and systems can adequately adapt to. And even this assumes that there is some sort of linear progression towards a semi-stable state instead of churning, unpredictable "seasons" for tens of thousands of years before the climate settles into something.
- nanis 5y ago
  > The rapid rate of change itself is the problem What is the right rate of change? The answer does not have to be very precise. An estimate within an order of magnitude is OK.

What exactly is "the" "right" climate?

by nanis 5y ago

What exactly is "the" "right" climate?

Defining "the one single right climate" is hard. Defining "this change is bad" is substantially easier. Wet bulb temperatures of 35 degrees C in areas with billions of people and poor power infrastructure to run AC is bad, for example.

nanis 5y ago
> Wet bulb temperatures of 35 degrees C in areas with billions of people I had to look up what that meant ... With this kind of nonsense being pushed around and with more than two decades of constant scary tales, no wonder the kids are nervous. I grew up without any air conditioning at all. Ever. In any building. Summer temperatures between 35 - 40 C with high humidity. I do not know what the "wet bulb" equivalent of that is, but it was warm, for sure. People will figure out how to deal with the weather. One of the most fun tourist attractions of my childhood was swimming/free diving around two thousand year old ruins under water. The changes of a bunch of self-interested central planners figuring out how to do what you want without killing you are nil.
- s5300 5y ago
  Are you essentially saying that wet bulb is fake news because of your personal experience in which you didn't deal with wet bulb, especially on an extended timeframe? Do you believe that billions of people with poor infrastructure and no air conditioning are magically going to have infrastructure and air conditioning appear? There is a lot of strange posting going on in this thread for HN...
  - throwaway5752 5y ago
    There is a lot of strange posting going on in this thread for HN... You are sure right about that. Posts that are utterly lacking critical thinking, claims without evidence. It is embarrassing behavior for this forum. There is more data on this subject than possibly any other phenomenon on Earth, and visible, palpable change has occurred in recent memory.
  - nanis 5y ago
    > Are you essentially saying that wet bulb is fake news No. The comment I am responding to said: >> Wet bulb temperatures of 35 degrees C in areas with billions of people and poor power infrastructure to run AC is bad, for example The claim that something that has hitherto only been observed in extremely few circumstances for extremely brief periods of time will become commonplace requires strong proof.
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      > The claim that something that has hitherto only been observed in extremely few circumstances for extremely brief periods of time will become commonplace requires strong proof. 1. Wikipedia gives examples of wet bulb temperatures already approaching the 35 degree threshold in the current climate. 2. Climate scientists believe the global average temperature will (continue to) rise. The logical conclusion is that we're more likely to exceed wet bulb temperatures of 35 degrees as temperatures climb. Some of the areas already prone to high heat and high humidity are densely populated, and some of those areas don't have the infrastructure to support AC for everyone.
- jazzabeanie 5y ago
  From wikipedia: > Even heat-adapted people cannot carry out normal outdoor activities past a wet-bulb temperature of 32 °C (90 °F), equivalent to a heat index of 55 °C (130 °F). The theoretical limit to human survival for more than a few hours in the shade, even with unlimited water, is 35 °C (95 °F)
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  > I had to look up what that meant... ... and immediately had to reflexively reject it so it wouldn't sink in. > I do not know what the "wet bulb" equivalent of that is, but it was warm, for sure. It's fairly unlikely to have hit 35 a bunch, given that Wikipedia's table of places that've measured that temperature thus far has only ten places on it, and then "albeit too briefly and in too small a locality to cause fatalities".
  - nanis 5y ago
    > ... and immediately had to reflexively reject it so it wouldn't sink in. I am not convinced by the apocalyptic prophesy that billions of people will be living in 35 C wet bulb temperature soon ... If I were to be convinced that such a scenario is likely, you'd have to also convince me that creating a global system of central planning is the right thing to do which is what these NPR types want. Even carbon pricing and carbon markets, the least intrusive measure on the table, require some central authority to decide the right amount of CO2 to be emitted. Since anything and everything useful we do requires emitting CO2, that ties all our futures to central planning.
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      > I am not convinced by the apocalyptic prophesy that billions of people will be living in 35 C wet bulb temperature soon... You didn't even know what it was 12 hours ago. "I had to look up what that meant..."
      - nanis 5y ago
        Ignoring for a moment the nativist undertone of your comment, it is not unheard of for people to hear the term-of-art for a concept they already understand and have to look it up. It seems to me that once one realizes what a "wet bulb temperature of 35 C" means, it's only a hop, skip, and a jump to comprehend the immense vacuousness of your claim that billions of people will be regularly experiencing it. > poor power infrastructure to run AC is bad I agree. Let's not stand in the way of any developing nation building cheap, reliable power infrastructure along with cheap, reliable, flexible transportation infrastructure (aka roads and gas stations), so they too can travel in air-conditioned comfort from air-conditioned location to air-conditioned location. Oh, yes, that means not destroying economic wealth.
- UncleMeat 5y ago
  > People will figure out how to deal with the weather. Wet bulb temperature has a very specific meaning for human anatomy. At that temperature, you cannot vent heat. There is no mechanism to deal with that weather. The only option is to die, and quickly. That is a direct consequence of our literal anatomy.
- dagw 5y ago
  I do not know what the "wet bulb" equivalent of that is 40 deg c at 60% relative humidity is about 31 degrees "wet bulb". 35 deg c wet bulb is around 40 deg c at 95% relative humidity, or 45 deg c at 60% relative humidity. At 20% relative humidity a wet bulb temperature of 35 would mean an air temperature of almost 60.

NL807 5y ago

The one that does not result in ecological disaster.

nanis 5y ago
Which period of the earth's lifetime would you like to go back to?
- NL807 5y ago
  What's your point though?

jbay808 5y ago

Probably somewhere in the middle range of this graph: https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/

nanis 5y ago
Yeah, about that average. ... You do understand the difference between smoothed decadal or even centennial averages versus much more precise and frequent thermometer measurements, right? Also, you do understand that the thermometer observations we have are highly selected based on where humans preferred to live, right? I might do an update on this video, but here are the locations with thermometers that made it in to GHCNv3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h95uvT67bNg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h95uvT67bNg

tfehring 5y ago

The fact that climate change is a problem doesn't imply that there's a "right" climate. The rapid rate of change itself is the problem - and particularly the fact that that rate of change is faster than organisms and systems can adequately adapt to. Atmospheric CO2 levels have previously, naturally, been higher than they are today. The most recent time that they were that high, the land on which most of our population's biggest cities were built was underwater. We could have just as easily built cities in an environment in which CO2 levels and temperatures were higher than they were in 1800, just by building farther back from today's coasts - but we didn't, so some cities will face massive costs to adapt, and others will simply go away. All of that is literally true for cities, but it's also true by analogy for organisms and natural ecosystems. We can't quantify the full magnitude of climate change's impacts on those ecosystems, but there's wisdom in risk aversion when dealing with highly uncertain situations.

frabbit 5y ago
the fact that that rate of change is faster than organisms and systems can adequately adapt to. And even this assumes that there is some sort of linear progression towards a semi-stable state instead of churning, unpredictable "seasons" for tens of thousands of years before the climate settles into something.
nanis 5y ago
> The rapid rate of change itself is the problem What is the right rate of change? The answer does not have to be very precise. An estimate within an order of magnitude is OK.