Comment by coldpie | Hacker News Reader

Comment by coldpie | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I skimmed the recent IPCC report and keep up with science news, mostly via Ars Technica. A good summary is at Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fifth_Assessment_Report

"""The global surface temperature increase by the end of the 21st century is likely to exceed 1.5 °C relative to the 1850 to 1900 period for most scenarios, and is likely to exceed 2.0 °C for many scenarios"""

> I ask because as far as I can tell we were told 20 years ago that it would be too late 10 years in the future (10 years ago for us) based on models that have clearly not panned out.

Yes, it is unfortunate that science isn't perfect, but it's the best we have, and computer projections have only made it more reliable in recent years than it was in the 80s and 90s. I understand that changing the base of our entire economic system isn't easy, but it's becoming blindingly clear that it needs to happen to halt more disastrous changes. Deniers like Smith are preventing positive action on climate change from occurring, and side-shows like the NOAA investigation are a waste of both critical time and money.

If we had taken action twenty years ago, perhaps we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.

It is not blindingly clear to those nations that are developing.

China has brought their coal plants online and they use 4,361,427 thousand short tons of unfiltered or carbon captured coal to the United States carbon capturing EPA mandated 924,442 thousand short tons. Compare areas that have coal plants with those which do not in China versus America [3] and you can see that our nation has it under control and China does not. [1]

Are we honestly going to another country and tell them to quit developing?

Do we have the will to force them to give up their coal fired plants for nuclear energy (which from internal announcements is set to make up only 5% of their power structure), or natural gas? What does that will look like, money, political manipulation, force?

How can you say that computer projections are more reliable now than they were before? Hurricane projections, using state of the art modeling for a shortened horizon cannot say whether a hurricane in three days will bear west or east of Florida. The validation of the computer projections of today will not be evaluated for another fifteen years, all the while, every day you can continue on with that statement, essentially: "All of the previous models had errors, but today's model is perfect."

[1] http://www.eia.gov/beta/international/

[2] I do not have a picture that correctly does this justice, there are ones that are doctored by greenpeace and others where the plant is not running at capacity. So this is not a fair comparison.

[3] http://www.ecorevolution.it/img/pho/me6.jpg

The sooner we do it, the impacts will be smaller and it will be cheaper. The longer we wait, the more pain we're in for. Politics don't change that fact. No one said it would be easy, but burying our heads in the sand isn't going to solve anything.

But what would we do, how are we going to tell China or India, sovereign nations whose people are emerging from abject poverty, to knock it off? These nations are on a year over year increase path that by 2030 will see them doubling their CO2 emissions.

Are you willing to give them money and how much, what if they do not use it for appropriate actions?

Are you willing to force them to change, how do you propose forcing them? Are you willing to wage American lives now for a future probability?

The United States of America has done a great job reducing its environmental impact. Back in the day it was a rare event to see stars in Los Angeles because of the fog (the gaseous burning orb ones not the celebrities), but thanks to the EPA, it is a common occurrence now.

I don't know. I agree it's hard. But we need to stop allowing people who deny it's a problem to have positions of power. It's time to acknowledge that the problem exists and start finding solutions for it.

The way politics works in this case would then be to vote those out of office who challenge these changes.

The problem with this is that the populace won't because they are skeptical, for very good reasons.

They see models not working (i.e. alarmism backfired), they see IPCC authors leaving and denouncing authorship because they view the report as too alarmist. They see people warning of "we'll have the worst hurricane seasons ever in the next 5 years!" and then very little happening.

Alarmism has an unfortunate contribution to skepticism (while not the intended result of action) that will keep skeptics in power. And I think this is a good thing.

You advocate for people like Smith to not have positions of power. You should also look at people on the other end of the spectrum, alarmists, who have power and try to use it to incite action. That backfires and we move nowhere. Skepticism, as I mentioned before, is a natural reaction to this.

Change needs to come from both sides.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com