4 ms·

It's not that people aren't believing you or that it's not true, it's that it doesn't apply to the conversation at hand and so completely misses the point that

by rewgs 3y ago

It's not that people aren't believing you or that it's not true, it's that it doesn't apply to the conversation at hand and so completely misses the point that it's kind of baffling that anyone would arrive at your conclusion that it's this simple with a straight face. The reality is that it isn't hot vs cold, it's all of the things climate change are affecting -- hotter weather, yes, but colder weather too, less predictable weather, more extreme/frequent storms and natural disasters, crop failures, the associated geopolitical fallout, loss of habitable land, water shortages, and the countless downstream effects of all of the above and more. And I'm pretty sure that all those things are deadly. Also, putting literally all of that aside, hot weather kills people too, so if it even were as simple as "hot vs cold," more frequent and hotter hot weather would also kill more people too. Look up wet-bulb temperature if you'd like to find a new source of nightmares. The fact that you apparently don't see any of this and just think "hot = better because more people die from cold weather than hot" is why you're getting downvoted to oblivion. It's a surprisingly braindead argument even by HN's all-too-frequent "can't see the forest for the trees" lapses in judgement.

aeternum 3y ago
It applies because the article exclusively discusses a 2 degree temperature rise. A 2 degree temperature rise is not enough to cause widespread crop failures, significantly increased natural disasters, nor the other things you mention. Everything in life has pros and cons, here a 2 degree temperature rise will result in 5 million humans saved, it's pretty disingenuous to not to at least mention that. I even generally agree that a large temp increase 10-20+ degrees super risky and not something we should experiment with, but this fear mongering about 2 degrees is ridiculous and not based in science.
- magicalhippo 3y ago
  > It applies because the article exclusively discusses a 2 degree temperature rise. You are correct in pointing out that the headline is, at face value, incorrect. The context is that the 2 degrees C is a global average temperature increase compared to some fixed baseline. As an average it doesn't say anything about the variance. To illustrate, the average value of 4, 4, 5, 6, 6 and 1, 1, 5, 9, 9 are the same, 5. Our climate models however show that an increase in average temperature will most likely be accompanied by a fair increase in variance, meaning both much hotter and much colder weather. And it's this increase in variance that's the main issue.
  - machina_ex_deus 3y ago
    There's no research whatsoever connecting CO2 to increase in variance. This is pure speculation.
machina_ex_deus 3y ago
Can you please enlighten me and point me to the research showing this interpretation of climate change? Of having more chaotic weather? As far as I know, climate change models and GCMs only predict a very small trend in the mean temperature. I haven't seen any research that shows that the variance of the weather should also increase or decrease as a result of CO2. It's not the same thing. GCMs are not even intricate enough to be able to predict these things. The narrative that CO2 somehow makes the maximally chaotic weather even more chaotic is completely unbacked by data. It's not backed by anything. The daily variance in temperatures is as much as 10s degrees between day and night. Climate models are talking about barely a single degree over a decade, and the variance between models here is also very high. By the way, for all we know, CO2 could increase the mean while decreasing the variance. The "more chaotic weather" is pure speculation by the climate cult. It's a completely unfalsifiable conjecture. The GCMs can't predict extreme weather events. They are just incapable of that with their gross resolution. And I don't expect anyone to be able to predict it, it's extremely hard task. So stop repeating this nonsense, there's not a single number that quantifies this narrative with any confidence.

by rewgs 3y ago

aeternum 3y ago

It applies because the article exclusively discusses a 2 degree temperature rise. A 2 degree temperature rise is not enough to cause widespread crop failures, significantly increased natural disasters, nor the other things you mention. Everything in life has pros and cons, here a 2 degree temperature rise will result in 5 million humans saved, it's pretty disingenuous to not to at least mention that. I even generally agree that a large temp increase 10-20+ degrees super risky and not something we should experiment with, but this fear mongering about 2 degrees is ridiculous and not based in science.

magicalhippo 3y ago
> It applies because the article exclusively discusses a 2 degree temperature rise. You are correct in pointing out that the headline is, at face value, incorrect. The context is that the 2 degrees C is a global average temperature increase compared to some fixed baseline. As an average it doesn't say anything about the variance. To illustrate, the average value of 4, 4, 5, 6, 6 and 1, 1, 5, 9, 9 are the same, 5. Our climate models however show that an increase in average temperature will most likely be accompanied by a fair increase in variance, meaning both much hotter and much colder weather. And it's this increase in variance that's the main issue.
- machina_ex_deus 3y ago
  There's no research whatsoever connecting CO2 to increase in variance. This is pure speculation.

machina_ex_deus 3y ago

Can you please enlighten me and point me to the research showing this interpretation of climate change? Of having more chaotic weather? As far as I know, climate change models and GCMs only predict a very small trend in the mean temperature. I haven't seen any research that shows that the variance of the weather should also increase or decrease as a result of CO2. It's not the same thing. GCMs are not even intricate enough to be able to predict these things. The narrative that CO2 somehow makes the maximally chaotic weather even more chaotic is completely unbacked by data. It's not backed by anything. The daily variance in temperatures is as much as 10s degrees between day and night. Climate models are talking about barely a single degree over a decade, and the variance between models here is also very high. By the way, for all we know, CO2 could increase the mean while decreasing the variance. The "more chaotic weather" is pure speculation by the climate cult. It's a completely unfalsifiable conjecture. The GCMs can't predict extreme weather events. They are just incapable of that with their gross resolution. And I don't expect anyone to be able to predict it, it's extremely hard task. So stop repeating this nonsense, there's not a single number that quantifies this narrative with any confidence.