Anchorage Has Never Reached 90° F. That Could Change This Week
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
Weirdly, it is now our dry season, with temperatures around 21degC and I just Googled the weather in her area and they are expecting around 30degC - Alaska is actually hotter than Northern Australia is right now!
My point was that I don't believe Alaska ever got warmer than we ever do here, but it has happened. My first story about the 70 degree variation in temperature is more the norm.
Longitude only affects the time of day, and thus daily temperature variations. Latitude is much more important, and determines climate and seasons. You are at vastly different latitude than Alaska.
32C is not that bad, a simple fan is more than enough to keep you cool.
I imagine 32C might feel damned pretty hot to an Alaskan.
Either way 90F without AC is too hot, even for me.
E.g. I find 0C in London way colder than -15C in Northern Europe.
I also think that you wear different clothes and are more prepeared when it is -15.
It's not _just_ humidity. Rain just simply can't exist at -15C, so you can't get your clothes moist because it can only snow, and that snow is cold enough not to stick to you at all.
I am not even going to start on the fact that you can walk miles of snow and not get wet, while walking through miles of slush... Well, I hope you understand the distinction.
Briefly, the argument goes that the average world temperature is about 58 F, and that climate change could raise that by 7 F. Dubai averages about 35 F above the world average of 58 F and they get by just fine by heavy use of air conditioning. They are able to do this, according to the article, because of their heavy use of fossil fuels and government policies that promote "economic freedom and growth".
The article notes that not every county as oil, but they can still share in this fossil fuel driven response to climate change:
> Not every country has oil, but in a globalized market, cheap fossil fuels are available everywhere to spur rapid growth and technological change.
[1] https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/how-fossil-f...
Great ! now rest of the world can't understand.
I won't enter into the unit war, and FWIW I'm used to centigrades.
I'll change it to say 90°F now.
I see from your history it's the only thing you have ever posted on HN.
I want to help these people find a spot where they can find like-minded people interested on working on it - and I believe climate change posts on HN are a good match between people concerned about the climate, and who would be interested in joining tech communities working to fix it. I'm all ears to find other ways to give people avenues to work on their "climate" anxiety - let me know if you have better ideas.
I love HN, but it's gotten so that if it's a weekend or U.S. holiday, it's climate stories. I'm happy to ignore them, but the site itself is beginning to look a bit preachy on this particular topic.
The issue is growing in urgency and severity. By social convention people treat it like any other issue, but it drawfs anything else in terms of the scale of the problem.
So it’ll remain relevant to the forum, which tends to do a better joh weighting things based on importance. That said the discussions likely verge on repetitive.
There are "Show HN:" posts...perhaps that's a better option for you.
It's a topic I find important, so I do try and read those that come by. First time or two it's interesting, when I see 4 or 5 relevant stories break same day, like a couple of days ago, and it looks like I saw half those you found that day... For me at least, that seems like pushing it.
Calling this "spam" implies the poster hopes to profit from his actions. In this case, the poster literally wants to save the entire planet.
The principle of HN is intellectual curiosity: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Repetition is the enemy of curiosity—readers come here for things they haven't seen before. So is promotion—readers come here for relief from growth marketing, not to be subjected to it. We want users to post to HN when their personal intellectual curiosity is engaged, and not otherwise.
Rallying support for a cause is no different, even if the cause is important—more important than the rest of what's on this site. In fact, that importance means that HN needs even more protection, because otherwise it would be taken over completely by those more important things.
Lets pick the peak of last ice age and be amazed because since then we are only getting warmer.
Lets also add some exponent predictions in the end, because it worked out so well for Lisa Simpson teeth.
I like xkcd, but this is not their best work.
At this point irrational hope is about the only hope left, so sure. Let's say you're right. Everything is fine. Natural cycles. Whatever.
I don't think that guy is denying anything. He's merely stating that the earth has gone through drastic changes _many_ times in the past.
What makes this change the final one before earth is incapable of sustaining life?
I think it still it's an open question whether modern human civilization will survive these changes. Today, people are already dying of heat and rioting for lack of water: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_heat_wave_in_India_and_Pa...
If society does collapse from drought, famine, resource wars, etc., then will we be able to rebuild it without all the free energy from fossil fuels, or was that a one-time cheat code? Maybe we're looking at the Great Filter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter
Bringing with them tons of changes to the climate, the kind which would kill billions from famines, floods, tornadoes, heat, lack of potable water, etc, in our hugely populated modern world.
>What makes this change the final one before earth is incapable of sustaining life?
We don't merely want an Earth "capable of sustaining life". We want an Earth capable of sustaining us, the whole 8 billions, and not a hellhole of environmental disaster, famine, decertification, and so on.
I could not give less fucks if cockroaches and wolves, e.g. survive, but billions of people are wiped out...
If you look at the bigger picture it means nothing:
Last 65M years:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/65_Myr_Climate_C...
Lat 10K years:
https://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000...
Now please explain to me that how looking at only the last 100 years is relevant or it prooves anything.
Don't worry about climate change, we're all going to have bled to death first.
If we could show that prior to the Last Glacial Period the temperature never breached 90°F, maybe this would be compelling.
It seems that you are setting an impossible bar rather than seeking an honest inquiry, happy to be corrected though
I don't like the argument because it's unprovable with any degree of reliability (i.e. we can know the ice age was cold, but how cold? generally... this cold), but to outright ignore it is not fair either.
Higher sea levels, higher temperates, higher CO2. The earth has had all that for millions of years in the past without triggering mass extinctions. Humans have been around for all of it except higher CO2.
And it's all happening on a slow enough time scale (generations) that I expect minimal disruption. Global warming is real but not the apocalyptic catastrophe that media makes it out to be. We as a species have better things to worry about like millions of us dying from preventable diseases every year.