Hacker News Reader

Comment by oolongCat | Hacker News Reader

I live in one of those "Record Warmest" boxes, it really was hot during the past year.

Its funny how people you would consider uneducated and poor in my country would understand that there is clearly something going wrong with the world around us, while some people with lots of money, influence and education choose to believe that this is all a conspiracy by a foreign government.

It's just nuts, really, something is terribly wrong with our world, and we need to fix it.

Please, if you have the time, please join a local group that helps conserve the environment, learn how you could help reduce your carbon footprint, even a little could go a long way.

View on HN

people ... understand that there's clearly something going wrong with the world

something is terribly wrong

This feeling of impending catastrophe, especially when prompted by signals as imperceptible to a human being as average change of 1.33 degrees Celsius (on land) on the average of the 20th century temperatures, to me is an indication of that kind of paranoia or panic that feeds on tiny when not completely imaginary cues.

This is not to say that I don't believe climate change is real; just that I think that the debate would be more rational and productive if people relied on scientific data and stopped using personal feelings, anecdotes and questionable reports to support their position.

Is it an anecdote, when every ice mass on the planet is melting/has melted? When 400 century old ice in Siberia is all gone in a matter of a few years? When the million-year-old Antarctic ice shelf is undergoing runaway melting because of seawater rushing in underneath because the margins have melted away?

The planet is undergoing irreversible change as we speak. The only 'imaginary' thinking is the denial that continues despite the overwhelming accumulation of data.

No, it's not, as long as you measure it and give precise figures. And we do it. I just tend not to trust somebody's personal assessment of the situation based on the fact that he thinks it's warmer than in the past: it might be local weather patterns, El Nino, simple suggestion.

It's not somebody's personal assessment. It's the scientific consensus of almost all scientists. Climate change is not in question, it's not a possibilty under discussion it's as close to scientific fact as gravity and evolution.

All non-trivial change is irreversible.

>I live in one of those "Record Warmest" boxes, it really was hot during the past year.

You can sense a 0.23 degree F average temperature difference? Or maybe you are unhelpfully confusing weather with climate?

Or, he could be observing that there were noticeably more noticeably hotter days last summer.

The problem is extrapolating from local weather to "climate change is real!" or "climate change is a lie!"

We mock idiotic politicians who use snowstorms to "debunk" global warming; we should hold the other side to the same standard.

There's a difference.

Of course, if someone says "My country was so hot last year, this proves global warming!" then it's BS. On the other hand, since we know that global warming is happening, it's totally legitimate to say "My country was so hot last year, it sucked, and thanks to Global Warming we can expect more such years to come in the future. Why aren't we doing anything about it?"

Let's say summer is 100 days, and "normally" there are 10 days of 90-degree highs (the hot days) and 90 days of 70-degree highs. That's an average high of 72 degrees.

Now, if you have a summer with one additional hot day, the average high is 72.2 degrees, which is about the 0.23 degree average increase observed.

Obviously these numbers are made up, but could you really just casually notice only one more hot day than normal? It seems like you'd need to be keeping count to have any sort of confidence that this summer was hotter than normal.

As you helpfully state, it is a 0.23F average temperature difference. That could mean the temperature was significantly warmer for a large period of time, then somewhat cooler. Depending on the magnitude, the temperature could have varied widely, but only increased 0.23F, on average.

So it could be incredibly easy to sense.

It might also be that the hottest day were much less warm than in the previous years, but with less cool days.

Or it could be personal bias filtering memories and inputs.

I know which one I'd bet on.

0.23F was the global average difference. Different regions experience different deltas, some negative, some much more positive.

Well, you should really try living here.

The thing is, you can really tell the difference when you have to deal with this heat everyday there are some days you just do not feel like going outside. The sun just burns, especially when you get down from your car you can feel your whole face burning up.

See the thing is, growing up we never had an A/C in our house, no one complained, once in a while yes it would get hot, but a common table fan would fix the problem.

But now, everyday we many families around where I live need to keep a table fan running at all times.

Its 4 AM in the morning, and its still warm outside. And Jan is supposed to be a relatively colder month in my country.

The funny thing is, just how many people over here notice this increase in temperature.

It's scary.

You're definitely scared. It's also a El Nino year, it might be that the weather patterns in your region have been altered by this periodic oscillation. By the way, where do you live?

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" by Upton Sinclair says everything about this issue.

One cold morning, with a very clear sky, no clouds in sight, I overheard two old ladies discussing how when they were young the sky was bluer, they both agreed. This was in Salamanca, Spain, not Beijing, so no smog to account for.

Aging can cause a decrease in retain sensitivity: "Cells in the retina that are responsible for normal color vision decline in sensitivity as we age, causing colors to become less bright and the contrast between different colors to be less noticeable. ... In particular, blue colors may appear faded or "washed out." While there is no treatment for this normal, age-related loss of color perception, you should be aware of this loss if your profession (e.g. artist, seamstress or electrician) requires fine color discrimination."

http://www.allaboutvision.com/over60/vision-changes.htm

Awesome. I have told this story a few times, but never thought of that. Thanks!

Is it possible Avogadro's number is actually not a constant?

I was also made suspicious to some of the claims about climate change by the fact that in Italy we've had, since I was a child, two common sayings:

"Summers are not as they used to be"

and

"there are no autumns and springs anymore"

They were used as examples of empty cliches that old people repeat - something to absolutely avoid. Somehow it was known that while everybody feels that it is so, it's also a form of mis-perception, much like "Nowadays young people have no manners any more". Then the climate change issue became prominent, and immediately everybody was transformed again in its own legitimate one-person weather station, complete with long and accurate temperature records.

In the "Dictionnaire des idées reçues", a long and hilarious list of vacuous cliches that Flaubert compiled in the 1870s, you can read the following line:

"Hiver. Toujours exceptionnel"

>> It's just nuts, really, something is terribly wrong with our world, and we need to fix it.

You should probably start with developing countries like China and India. The US has been actively reducing its carbon footprint for a while now:

Energy related carbon emissions in the United States declined by 12% between 2005 and 2012, back to a level not seen since 1994.

Per capita emissions fell 17% over the same period, and are now at their lowest level in 50 years.

This decline in emissions occurred across the US economy, with the switch from coal to natural gas in the power sector responsible for just 35-40% of the drop.

http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/us-carbon-emissions-decline

I agree that China and India need to reduce their emissions. But those don't seem like the US numbers we should actually be looking at. What are energy related carbon emission vs. total emissions? And what happened to US population over that period?

It would be helpful to have a number for total emissions.

Per-capita CO2 emissions by countries, 2011:

    US 17.0t
    China 6.7t
    India 1.7t

Yeah, we should totally talk to China and India.

Source: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?order=wba...

Total CO2 emissions by countries, 2014:

    US 5.3 Gt
    China 10.5 Gt
    India 2.3 Gt

Yeah, China and India are totally relevant to global CO2 emissions. The global climate doesn't give a damn about how many people are responsible for a given quantity of emissions, it's completely and utterly uncaring.

So, if China decides to divide itself into ten countries, each with 1.05 Gt emission, the earth will be so much better?

The global climate doesn't give a damn about national borders, either.

Of course China is important, because decisions made by its government can affect a billion people, but the same can be said for the US. (Good luck persuading Chinese people to reduce their emission, if the US doesn't commit itself to do the same.)

Both factors are important, period. Whether it's people who are emitting a lot per capita today or countries with lots of people who are increasing their emissions.

You cannot have a reasonable discussion about CO2 emissions without talking about India and China.

Let's say the US halves its per capita emissions tomorrow. Hey, that's fantastic right?

But then let's say China and India come up to match the US's per capita emissions levels. That would increase China's emissions by 25% and India's emissions by 5x. Increasing total emissions for all 3 countries by 50%.

Even if the US stops emitting CO2 tomorrow, if China and India reach 50% of the US's per capita emissions they will together account for 1.2x the total emissions of the US, China, and India today.

Pretending that because the US has much higher per capita emissions today means that it's ok to ignore the rest of the world is pure fantasy. That's the point. We should totally "talk" to China and India. Nobody gets a free pass.

>> if the US doesn't commit itself to do the same.)

By the stats I posted, it seems we're doing quite a lot actually. Unless you have other data that would indicate otherwise.

This isn't how math works. Averages matter. What the world doesn't give a damn about is country borders.

Also, enough with the blame game. All three countries have to put in all possible efforts.

> Also, enough with the blame game. All three countries have to put in all possible efforts.

That's the point. Some people seem to think that shouldn't be the point. But it has to be. There's only one biosphere, nobody gets a free pass for carbon emissions just because some other country had higher per capita emissions in 2015, that's not how that works.

Please provide a source to validate your numbers.

http://bfy.tw/3pkg

Per unit GDP is a better metric. Carbon is produced from production not from people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ratio_of_...

By that metric China is among the worst in the world and India isn't far behind.

And to whom do you think the Chinese and Indians are selling all the products of their export oriented industries?

Or for the matter, where do you think all the American safe, high-paying, manufacturing jobs went?

Outsourcing to a hitman does not make it a non-murder.

Usually countries stop burning coal and use something that emits less CO2 as they develop. Except the US. It's still burning the most coal per capita, by far.

Getting rid of coal is a great place to start.

Countries get rid of it by burning it, then they stop burning it because its gone. Britain didn't intentionally start lowering production in 1910, they literally burned it all, then had to find something else.

The UK produced significant coal until the early 1980s and the significant reduction in output then was for political rather than geological reasons.

Actually it was for economic reasons. The UK lost comparative advantage for coal production. The way they mine coal in the UK is positively archaic compared to monster open cut mines which out produce the UK deep pits by a wide margin.

> Actually it was for economic reasons.

Well, a bit of both. True it was not economically sound, but the NUM (coal miners union) had a lot of leverage. All coal power plants had to buy British coal for example, which in turn meant that the government had to capitulate to their demands or face a shutdown. Thatchers decision to shut the mines was incredibly unpopular and to this day large swathes of the north despise her (somewhat unduly), but in combination with a wave of privatization managed to break the union stranglehold. Without the Iron Lady taking that step the mines would have been open for far far longer.

Some of the mines she closed would actually be profitable now though, due to the rising cost of coal.

Yeah the way they were kept open and then shut down was purely political, no argument there. But they were doomed in an era of free trade. Arguably the UK should have moved to free trade earlier and reaped the benefits instead of arguing about coal mining. I don't have a lot of hope for people to ever agree on that though.

It's true that old mines can reopen during periods of high demand, but they'd be shutting again now as the coal price has plummeted again, probably due to the energy glut especially in gas. In an ideal world the mines would be owned by someone who would open them when it made sense, and close them again when it no longer made sense.

This isn't always a fair comparison. Some of the UK pits were high quality anthracite. Also some cost savings could surely have been made if the two political sides had been able to actually make meaningful compromises.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com