Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by vanilla-almond | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

vanilla-almond

From the article:

> The six tipping points "likely" to be crossed, according to the research, published in Science, are:

- Greenland Ice Sheet collapse

- West Antarctic Ice Sheet collapse

- Collapse of ocean circulation in the polar region of the North Atlantic

- Coral reef die off in the low latitudes

- Sudden thawing of permafrost in the Northern regions

- Abrupt sea ice loss in the Barents Sea.

The Science research article:

Exceeding 1.5°C global warming could trigger multiple climate tipping points - https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abn7950

View on HN

The focus in climate change discourse seems to be all about prevention when we've clearly been headed on course for worst case scenario several degree rise the whole time. Emissions have not even peaked yet with China, India and the rest of the third world essentially outdoing all the progress the first world has made over the past decades. Not to mention the coming surge in population of Africa in the coming decades who will all want material lifestyles for themselves.

In Germany, the richest 10% of the population is producing 50% of the CO2.

At the world level, the richest 1% is producing double of the poorest 50%.

We should not talk about the increase coming from other countries, we should already start with us reducing our impact and adapt. The problem is that we all have/find good excuses not to change our behavior.

It’s trivial to show that doesn’t solve the problem.

China together with India account for 35% percent of the world's CO2 emissions, I think it is fair to complain about them a bit.

That's less than their population share though.

yes, because vast swaths of these countries live in extreme poverty, not because of environmental consciousness.

we are talking about people who swim next to corpses in the ganges river.

>> We should not talk about the increase coming from other countries, we should already start with us reducing our impact and adapt.

[China and India CO2 impact is less than their population's share]

> because vast swaths of these countries live in extreme poverty, not because of environmental consciousness.

This injects a judgement that I think is irrelevant. The impact on the environment does not depend on the REASON. It depends only on the ACTION.

Frankly, with that lead in, I am surprised the above poster did not go on to say: "We should focus on preparing to survive a massive climate change." That was certainly my take-away from the argument.

About equal to it. China and India each have about 1.4 billion people, the world about 8 billion, and 2.8/8 = 0.35

If you look at cumulative emissions, they are also much smaller fraction.

Also china produces goods for consumption of west so there is a majority of emissions just exported to china but really should be in developed nation's bucket.

Material lifestyles are fine.

Fossil carbon is not.

China and India have net zero goals, just like the USA.

What part of them are you worried about specifically?

https://www.unpri.org/pri-blog/the-net-zero-transition-in-ch...

>Collapse of ocean circulation in the polar region of the North Atlantic

Does this mean Ireland, Britain and Scandinavia will get really cold? We depend critically on the Gulf Stream...

Yes.

well... probably... there are no definite predictions when dealing with a chaotic system phase change.

> - Sudden thawing of permafrost in the Northern regions

It seems like I was reading a lot of articles about the Permafrost in Siberia hitting temperature records as well as suffering from massive wildfires. Now it seems like there is less news from that region.

A well done (gated) recent FT article on the boreal forest that also speaks to decreased scientific collaboration post-Ukraine war: https://www.ft.com/content/e59c800f-3704-4504-91b0-06e583d9c...

Archive.Is (Archive Today) bypasses FT paywall.

<https://archive.ph/nmaK7>

Now it seems like there is less news from that region.

The news industry is a business like any other. Journalists don't stop reporting on things when the things stop happening; they stop reporting when they feel the reports aren't driving engagement with the audience, eg revenue.

There is only a loose correlation between what's happening in the world and what's being reported in newspapers and journals when it comes to long term trends.

excellent summary

They report only what is novel and salient for the target audience. If something is on-going but not novel it won’t be reported on until something novel happens (e.g. climate change only gets reported on when there’s some kind of study, report, natural disaster or climate conference), and they will only report what they consider salient facts (e.g. general news will not report on the actual science, because that’s too technical and boring, only on controversy around the science or controversial conclusions drawn from the science).

What is novel and salient is only a tiny fraction of what is relevant to come to an informed opinion. That’s why news is set up for failure if its role is seen as informing the public. I see more potential for documentaries when it comes to informing the public, but the news controversies around past climate documentaries have made the category somewhat burnt.

> ournalists don't stop reporting on things when the things stop happening; they stop reporting when they feel the reports aren't driving engagement with the audience, eg revenue.

Also when something is getting worse at the same rate it was getting worse previously, engagement drops in favour of stories where change is new or accelerating: over the last while has been Covid then Ukraine then inflation all blowing up surprisingly and rapidly while the permafrost situation is quietly getting worse as expected.

If you are in the UK right now you'd be forgiven for asking “whatever happened to news about inflation and Ukraine” because they fell off the news cycle for a while unless you took efforts to look beyond the daily headlines & front-pages, as they were progressing just as bad as before but something else (the health of ol' Liz and related constitutional matters) had a sudden bump in its rate of change. Even the 9/11 anniversary didn't get a look-in.

Ukraine is creeping back into the news cycle, as monarch related matters are settling into their final pattern (everyone who needs/wants to know has a clue how the next week or few are going to pan out in that regard) but there has been a sudden change in the Ukraine/Russia situation in the form of the recent surprise counter offensive (surprise both in that such an effort was not sign-posted, for the obvious reason that being unexpected was part of the plan, and in how effectively it has worked).

There is a correlation and in this case it is more or less the entire story.

>7 times less area was affected by forest fires in the region this year compared to 2021. This is inside scoop but you can easily verify it by checking particulates/CO data using nullschool's earth. Last year smoke covered area the size of Oregon or something and persisted for weeks.

"There had been very few fires" is just not catchy news, who would like or comment?

Permafrost thawing is a separate issue but may be a bit harder to obtain realtime data until buildings crumble

Well, yes, the war has made it more difficult and dangerous to do journalism of any kind in Russia.

There have been massive fires going on in russia this year. Normally the army would help put them out. They've just shrugged.

When this happens, which regions are going to get much hotter, and which are going to get colder?

The weather across the globe will get more chaotic. All across the globe we will start seeing weird weather, including both unusually cold seasons and unusually hot and wetter and drier years. This might seem counter intuitive but if you imagine a pot very slowly heating up, you'd get different regions of cold and hot until the pot reaches equalibrium.

Will there be a particular region where the higher average warming is concentrated? Or will all regions tend to be, on average, warmer (ignoring the higher variation)?

Landmass especially. The increase in average temperature will concentrate over landmasses.

Depending on how fast the artic ice cap melt, we could see the average temperature over a year in western europe drop, while increasing over the summer months.

But climate is weird, that's why the less we perturb it, the better we get.

What about small landmasses, like Japan or Indonesia?

I'm not an expert, i merely did a lot of research during Covid (nothing better to do tbh), and since i've never asked myself the question, i never researched islands specifically.

I think you might be able to find NASA maps and compare the average temperature in 1991 and today, you'll have your response.

Sorry if i can't be more helpful.

https://climate.copernicus.eu/surface-air-temperature-februa... The term to search for is "temperature anomaly". If you can't see it well on that image, the north pole is also warming very quickly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com