There’s a heatwave in the sea and scientists are worried | Hacker News Reader

There’s a heatwave in the sea and scientists are worried

bbc.com

150 pointsgardenfelder151 comments

Then there is this:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-66256101

>in fact I'm very pessimistic about achieving even 2C

In the US, the GOP refused to do anything and held the US hostage so they could cash in by taking bribes from the fossil fuel industry. The other party was too afraid to stand up to the GOP and fossil fuel industry, so nothing at all was done except talk. All the hot air from the pols taking about climate changed, probably contributed to the raising ave temp.

So here we are, baking in a pot where temps are raising slowly, like a lobster.

Like the boiled frog, perhaps we have not even realized that we are already cooked/doomed.

I don't know, I feel like it's already pretty obvious that we're "cooked/doomed", with some caveats:

1. Even in the worst case I haven't seen any level-headed scientists argue that the Earth will be uninhabitable a la Venus. We'll get a hotter planner, sea levels will rise considerably inundating coastal areas, the current anthropocene extinction event will accelerate, storms will be a lot more intense, etc. Obviously a major set of problems, but I think it's important to be specific about what those problems will be as opposed to "we'll all be dead".

2. Whenever someone even remotely argues that we'll be able to stick to some reasonable emissions targets I like to show this graph, https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions#global-co2-emission.... That is, it's good news that global emissions have largely stabilized over the past decade, but we're still pumping out over 35 billion tons of carbon every year. We need to find a way, somehow, to bring that to near 0, and while tech may get us there eventually I don't see that happening in my lifetime (I'm middle aged).

Agreed .. A lot of people will die as places become uninhabitable for a very very long time .. Access to clean water will become a major issue and the poor will lose (even more than they already are) .. Humans are a greedy species and this planet just can't support 8B+ (and counting of us) .. I don't know what it can support but we'll soon find out .. We are still decades away from near zero fossil fuels globally and yet we are still growing crops in the desert and watering it so people can have fun hitting a white ball .. Even if we can get to near 100% wind/solar/battery, we'll be busy polluting anything and everything with rare earth minerals as we churn through batteries like candy .. I don't see life being very fun in 50 years, even for the richest people

On your last point, lithium ion battery packs are supposedly extremely recyclable, and it’s cheaper to recycle them than to make a new one, so it seems likely that they will be recycled.

They'll have to be, because there isn't enough lithium on the planet (that we know of) to meet the expected demand.

> Humans are a greedy species and this planet just can't support 8B+

This seems like a pretty bold statement.

Let’s assume the only constraints on population are energy, water, and space. If you do a back of the napkin calculation on much Uranium exists on Earth, how much power we could produce by fissioning it, then how much water is in the oceans, and then assume everything else is an engineering problem?

I think the number wouldn’t be 8 Billion, but much more. That’s not even getting into mining asteroids, space-based energy, vertical hydroponics, living underground or in the oceans. I think the limits could be extraordinarily high

It’s a political problem first. You can’t engineer your way out of a problem when most of the people holding power or the resources needed decide to not spend the time or money because they think it’ll affect others and not them

We’re spending an enormous amount of money on climate alarmism and various apocalyptic cults right now. Are we living a different reality?

Money spent != effectiveness

Its still a political problem at the end of the day if you cannot convince a large section of the people with decision making power that its worth their time to deal with, regardless of how much money youve thrown at the issue yourself

"A lot of people will die as places become uninhabitable for a very very long time"

Places will become uninhabitable, but what's the argument for "a lot of people will die?" These are gradual changes we're talking about. People will move.

People will move to places that already have people - people that want to protect their resources, and will react with hostility to climate refugees. It's already happening. Pretzel logic doesn't change that.

Well, this is certainly not a strong position to argue from.

Ah of course, my mistake; throwing migrants, regardless of their legal status, back into rivers to let them drown, or sinking their boats, or depriving them water in historic heatwaves where people get second-degree burns from pavement surely isn't indicative of how things will play out once things get even worse.

No, it isn't indicative at all.

The vast majority of immigration occurs without incident and there is no compelling evidence that this will change in the future.

Twenty years ago these stories were not commonplace. The three I listed are from the last couple of months, and considering I could list them off the top of my head, it's more like last couple of news cycles. Not to mention the surface temps of the oceans are getting to be in the 100s fahrenheit, which wasn't predicted until closer to mid-century. They are indications.

No compelling evidence like the increase in global population, global temperatures, sea level rise, extreme weather events that cause greater amounts of people to be permanently displaced, political sectarianism, authoritarianism, extremism, and violence; and the concordant decreases in democracy, due process, habitable land, resources, and the ability of institutitions public OR private to handle the uncertainties. Because there's an "absence of evidence"? Because it would be a "black swan event"? Because it would be... unprecedented, perhaps? Have I made my point or do I need to keep going?

I'm going to go on anyway. 50 whales got beached and couldn't be returned to the water and so had to be mercy-killed. The UN secretary general said that the era of global warming is over because the era of global boiling has arrived. I'll keep you updated as long as the post remains open for comment!

Oopsie doopsie, Arizona spent the entire month of July over 110F, India is outlawing almost all rice exports, South America is over 100F in their winter, Antarctica is missing an Argentina-sized amount of ice in its winter, cacti in the Mojave Desert are wilting and dying in heat even they can't handle, and Iran just flat out shut down for two days due to the heat.

But sure, people are going to migrate slowly and not die in great numbers as receiving nations pull up the drawbridges and rain arrows on the intruders.

- "Humans are a greedy species and this planet..."

Propaganda of collective guilt is indeed strong last decade. Just not let them divide society. We have enough experience with that from history.

It seems pretty optimistic to say it's "stabilized over the past decade".

If I'm reading correctly, between 2011 and 2021 (the last year in the graph) there was an increase of 5 billion tons, and that was certainly helped by the big drop during the pandemic...

The vast majority of human history has been the Stone Age. It’s the stable state. What’s doomed is this temporary blip that has resulted from the explosion of free energy.

The human species will survive and will simply go back to the Stone Age and stay there another million years, this time without the risk of stumbling onto vast amounts of easy, free, dangerous carbon-based energy.

HN, where you’ll find the greatest fortune tellers.

In a way, I can agree with this. But I doubt it will be a "stone age". I tend to think it will be very similar to a cancelled SYFY Show called "Incorporated".

It is too bad it was not allowed to continue, but how the main star was written I think it doomed it. To me, if born outside the privileged caste, you would have no hope.

The post apocalyptic-type civilization can only last so long, though. I base my hypothesis on the Bronze Age collapse, where a bunch of fairly complex civilizations all went back to approximately the Stone Age in the span of 50 years or so. Advanced civilizations live on supply chains and are (as was demonstrated by the pandemic) actually pretty brittle. So I think the path back home to the Stone Age will go, as Hemingway said, “gradually, then suddenly.”

The Mayan collapse might also be instructive.

Depending what all the other effects you describe do to food production and communicable disease spread "we'll all be dead" may be only a moderate exaggeration of the effect over say a century or two.

That's my point, without more information that doesn't make sense:

1. I don't doubt disruption in global food production will likely cause some famines, but again, plenty of places will still be able to grow food, and in fact many places will open up to food production.

2. I don't see how any increase in communicable disease spread leads to anything close to "we'll all be dead".

Yes, lots of people will die due to the impacts of global warming, but nothing I've seen says there is any reason to think it will be a species ending effect.

As we are under more pressure due to all the factors you pointed out the odds that we are able to avoid spread of a highly contagious virus with a higher fatality rate than COVID (closer to say MERS) or a series of big famines (say 1% of global population) start to look uncomfortably lower than 100%.

Nah we realise. But there's nothing that you can do about it.

Reminds me of Dutch Jews in WW2 who tried to live a normal life until the police came to collect them.

We weren't cooked/doomed for about two years recently. Sometimes I miss the pandemic and those two years only because that apocalypse at least had an end in sight when it came to the "educated" public's reaction to it, this climate thing is the new year 1000 hysteria [1], it's just unfortunate that it will spread over the next decades.

[1] https://www.bu.edu/history/files/2011/10/11.Fear-of-an-Apoca...

The ten hottest summers on record happened in the last fifteen years. The number one hottest is this summer we're experiencing right now. And you call this "hysteria"?

Like I said, those stats had been forgotten about between 2020-2022, when the discourse was about another type of “new normal”, but one related to public health. Yes, it’s the very definition of apocalyptic hysteria.

Presently in Nebraska we are bracing for a heat index of 117°F, a situation with no precedent here in 2020, '21, or '22. I contend that what you describe as "apocalyptic hysteria" is the only reasonable and appropriate response to such a morbidly inhospitable climactic state of affairs. It's no more "hysterical" than screaming and banging on the windows when trapped in a hot car with no way out.

It’s not the GOP, its an entire economic system, defended at nuclear gunpoint, by the one of the world’s largest carbon emitters, who both parties reward with ever-expanding, fraud-ridden budgets, while their citizens starve and die on the streets, go bankrupt from illnesses, etc.

I’m sorry to tell you, but there is no one in the halls of US power steering the ship away from the worst outcomes of climate change because the entire thing is bought and sold by the people profiting from it.

Yeah the GOP is like the useful boogeyman, but most Dems are no better. Hell, the most powerful parts of the Dems include folks like Joe Manchin, who's right in the bag of coal. Even in a world where Hillary Clinton won the 2016 election and followed through on her policy goals, they were still too timid to turn the tide.

Why is Joe Manchin’s vote more powerful than the other Senators’ votes?

If you need 50 or 60 votes to do something, and you do not have it, then is the 50th or 60th vote more powerful than the other 49 and 59? And what about the other 49 and 39 votes that will not compromise?

Kind of ridiculous to pin this on a party that has not had enough votes to make a change. Especially when the states making the most progress towards reducing carbon emissions are Democrat led.

Manchins vote matters more because it is the tiebreaker that matters.. we have to live in the real world. Here’s some questions: Have Democrats never had the political power to make change? Did the Obama presidency not exist? Let’s be real.. the Dems have explicitly made it a policy to move towards the right in order to appeal to GOP voters. This isn’t just some conspiracy theory, it has been explicitly stated by dem officials at conventions, in interviews, and covered at length in liberal venues like the infamous Pod Save America episode on the Clinton campaign strategy.

If democrats were as militant about their positions as the GOP, maybe they’d have more than one major liberal policy win made through legislation in the past 50 years.. but they’re not, and they don’t.

It is not the tiebreaker. There are 49 other votes that could also be a tiebreaker.

> Have Democrats never had the political power to make change? Did the Obama presidency not exist?

Correct. They had the votes for 6 months in 2009 in which they passed the most comprehensive reform that I have seen in my adult life, the Affordable Care Act.

> If democrats were as militant about their positions as the GOP, maybe they’d have more than one major liberal policy win made through legislation in the past 50 years.. but they’re not, and they don’t.

Makes zero sense given the numbers of votes needed, but okay. Even the ACA barely had the numbers, which is why it has to be watered down to attract the Republican-lite members to vote with the rest of the Democrats.

But see, you’ve already given up the game: The Dems had a supermajority then, there were no compromises that had to be made except amongst themselves. So the Manchins of the party matter. A lot. And it’s not just Manchin — Pelosi up until the end was only two clicks left of him herself. And just like you’re doing now, the Dems use the GOP as an excuse instead of ramming their political agenda through for all of our sakes. The Democrats always have an excuse for why they need to compromise to the right, why their hands were tied and there was nothing they could do, and it doesn’t matter how much they disappoint, some people will eat it up every time.

It’s what allows Biden to call himself the most labor friendly president ever while crushing rail worker strikes. It’s what allows the absolute failure of policy called Obamacare to take up the national conversation. It’s what led to the conservative majority in the court. And it’s what led to the election of Trump, and why he’s still got a shot, even when he’s one foot out of federal prison. Maybe one day the Dems will learn. But not while their base keeps eating up their excuses and sending them money and votes…

So what, were you expecting them to solve every single problem the US faces in six months, and since they didn't clearly they just weren't actually trying and obviously the same as the GOP?

You’re moving the goal posts. They didn’t even hit the mark on the only thing they tried to do.. they completely lost the Obamacare campaign with the American people as well. During the Obamacare rollout I was actually on the ground in rural Missouri educating people, trying to get them on board with Medicaid expansion. They didn’t want to hear it until I personalized the message, talked about rural healthcare disparities, etc. Instead of doing that, bringing a left wing message to working people, the Dems (including the senator I was working for at the time) just moved to the right. I was there, I remember what happened. I remember Hillary pandering to the right. I remember the moves like the anti-LGBTQ rhetoric from Dems. I expect better from the only viable liberal party in America.

How did you expect them to get 60 votes in the Senate without moving to the “right”? You think a senator in 2009 was voting no because they thought the ACA was not sufficiently “left”?

Can you list those senators? Without that, it seems like you were dreaming of a fantasy ending.

You’re so focused on arguing that you’ve completely circled around to the point I was making from the beginning, which is that the Dems use the GOP to hide from that fact that their own party is controlled by right wing interests. So yeah, they’re a right wing party, only better than the GOP in ways that matter to out of touch liberals, incapable of achieving anything that doesn’t involve shallow Supreme Court decisions. They are completely and totally incapable of solving the climate crisis because they will always capitulate to the lowest common denominator — only on the right though of course. Pelosi was great at whipping the Squad into supporting whatever milquetoast policies she wanted, Schumer as well, but somehow that never ends up working on the right wing folks, I wonder why…

Of course, it doesn’t have to be that way. Dems could rally against corporate lobbying and for the better good. After all, they’ve been trying the opposite way for the last 50 years or more and failing in truly embarrassing fashion. Losing elections to literal conspiracy theorists, conmen, and bigots. But it won’t happen, because this way makes them rich and there are no consequences for them that matter. They simply choose to let things be this way and the Democrat base lets them get away with it.

> I’m sorry to tell you, but there is no one in the halls of US power steering the ship away from the worst outcomes of climate change

The folks who went hard on globalism since the 1990s certainly are. There were (and still are) a lot of politicians on both sides who support unchecked globalization, the ecological and human consequences be damned.

This is the cause of Climate Change, not the US, which is ramping down. If China had to meet the same absurd standards as the US and Europe we would be hitting climate goals no problem.

At what point should we start to optimize more for climate robust infrastructure than carbon reduction. There’s less willingness to invest in the robustness power grid than to get people into electric cars.

Robustness of infrastructure could also be aided by lifestyle changes, driving less…

> If China had to meet the same absurd standards as the US and Europe we would be hitting climate goals no problem.

China's per-capita emissions are far lower than both during the time period, even with net manufactured exports.

US carbon emissions peaked in 2000 and have been falling since, even without a per capita adjustment: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/carb...

Different politics in the US might have made some difference on the margin in lowering them more, but it's not really the main issue.

Yet all the CEOs are screaming in unison - get back to office get on with your commute and pollute the earth more.

Neither the government or the politicians or the CEOS or even the common people are willing to reimagine a more sustainable way of life. They are more willing to find reasons to maintain the status quo.

No one (or very few people) wants to give up luxuries like beach holidays in Thailand, electronic gadgets, steak. And if they do and someone else still get to enjoy them (e.g. billionaires, or just the wealthier Westerners), they get resentful - I think India got quite mad about "The West" dictating that people should travel less, "How fair", they say, "Westeners have been having good food and seeing the world for decades, and now when it's affordable to the poorer nations, Western leaders say 'how about we make it more expensive (e.g. by Carbon tax) so less people do it'."

I imagine people will resent you when you go about claiming that meat is a “luxury” indeed. It might just be you, not everybody else.

Recent prices of meat are lower than prices of cheese for example.

I would not be so complacent. A lot of that was driven by energy efficiency improvements, yet the GOP continues to push for watering things down like the CAFE standards.

> but it's not really the main issue.

Isn't reducing CO2 emissions as fast as possible the only issue in town when it comes to the climate crisis?

No, our real problem is "overshoot" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overshoot_(population) ) and the the "Great Acceleration" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Acceleration ).

‘Overshoot’ occurs when humanity consumes bio-resources faster than ecosystems can regenerate and waste production exceeds nature’s assimilative capacity. Overshoot is a meta-problem: climate change; plunging biodiversity; pollution of land, air and waters; tropical deforestation; soil/land degradation etc., etc., are all co-symptoms of overshoot. Climate change is an excess waste problem — CO2 is the greatest waste by weight of modern techno-industrial economies. We cannot solve any major symptom of overshoot in isolation. Indeed, the mainstream approach to emissions reductions will not only fail to subdue climate change but, by promoting material growth, will exacerbate overshoot (https://www.resilience.org/stories/2021-10-29/cop-26-stoppin...).

Almost everything we undertake follows a pattern resembling a hockey stick (https://futureearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/great_acc...), growing exponentially long after we've already surpassed safe boundaries. This has been happening for several decades now, at least since 1970. The carrying capacity of our environment has been deteriorating for decades, and recently, the rate of its decline has escalated. It is on the verge of entering free fall, if it hasn't already (nicely explained here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPb_0JZ6-Rc ).

We should have stopped using fossil fuels yesterday and started changing our diets, reforming agriculture, reforesting, restoring habitats and biodiversity, reforming financial systems, promoting degrowth and implementing UBI to address inequality, etc., etc. Many things need to be done urgently to halt the environmental crisis. Unfortunately, we are not even making significant progress on the changes we have announced.

We are acting too late, our efforts are insufficient. Nobody's truly in charge. COP is a farce, the IPCC has been bought by interest groups. Politicians are not taking decisive action, economic growth remains an obsession.

We are driving towards the cliff at full speed, with nobody at the brakes.

Carbon released by processes in the US, or carbon released by consumption of Americans, including that released elsewhere?

https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/15/1675/2023/

We've added the energy of 25 billion nuclear bombs to the Earth system in just the last 50 years.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-change-ocean-heat-new-r...

Last year, researchers say, the ocean heated up an amount equal to the energy of five of those bombs detonating underwater "every second for 24 hours a day for the entire year."

... the ocean in 2022 was "the hottest ever recorded by humans." It increased by 10.9 Zetta Joules, an amount of energy equivalent to the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima and an amount of heat about 100 times more than the electricity generated worldwide in 2021

---

This year is off the charts completely.

DATA RELEASED TODAY. North Atlantic Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly 1982 - 2023 (20/7-2023)

https://preview.redd.it/7ibmzvsi6ddb1.jpg?width=680&format=p...

THE DAY BEFORE (19/7-2023). North Atlantic Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly 1982 - 2023

https://preview.redd.it/payaxtpj6ddb1.jpg?width=1080&format=...

Daily Sea Surface Temperatures in the North Atlantic (20/7-2023)

https://preview.redd.it/q9ejy5xl6ddb1.jpg?width=1100&format=...

We haven't added anything. The sun did. We need new methods to control it.

We prevented it from escaping back into space. The sun didn't do anything different, we did.

Who told you that?

I wonder if we could just stop flying planes for a while (which might lead to global cooling, like the days after 9/11/2001)

There's a BBC documentary that suggest contrails and pollutants help block the sunlight from reaching the earth, and that the airspace lockdown lead to a slight warming: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7p6z05

But newer research says the Covid reduction of flights caused only very small warming (and not even cooling):

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

> The global response to the 2020 coronavirus pandemic led to a reduction in global air traffic of nearly 70% relative to 2019. Thus, it provided an extended opportunity to study the impact of contrails on regional and global temperature. Multiple studies found "no significant response of diurnal surface air temperature range" as the result of contrail changes, and either "no net significant global ERF" (effective radiative forcing) or a very small warming effect. On the other hand, the decline in sulfate emissions caused by the curtailed road traffic and industrial output during the COVID-19 lockdowns did have a detectable warming impact: it was estimated to have increased global temperatures by 0.01–0.02 °C initially and up to 0.03 °C by 2023, before disappearing.

The question is did it have an ozone effect relative to say Mt Pinatubo perturbation

Related. Others?

Unprecedented ocean temps “surpassing model predictions,” warn experts - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36684146 - July 2023 (29 comments)

New record anomaly for North Atlantic sea surface temperatures - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36433737 - June 2023 (56 comments)

Ocean temperatures are off the charts - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36319055 - June 2023 (13 comments)

World’s oceans at record high temperature for 80 consecutive days - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36187203 - June 2023 (119 comments)

Ocean Temperature - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35926821 - May 2023 (53 comments)

Ocean-surface temperatures are breaking records - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35841748 - May 2023 (125 comments)

Ocean Warming Study So Distressing, Some Scientists Didn't Want to Talk About It - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35747417 - April 2023 (73 comments)

Oceans’ sudden temperature spike stumps and alarms scientists - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35743531 - April 2023 (5 comments)

Charts

Antarctic Sea Ice: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F1jhzeRagAE_lAd?format=jpg&name=...

North Atlantic Sea Surface: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F1kbWmLaMAA48AI?format=jpg&name=...

I don’t think it’s just the scientists that are worried at this point.

The question is whether there is a general willingness to accept the implications of our currently unsustainable course needing a hefty correction in a timeframe that doesn’t lead to devastating consequences is looking increasingly unlikely.

It’s nice that “scientists are concerned,” buts it’s deeply dismissive language that should have stayed in the 90/ and genuinely, headlines like these actively contribute to the problem.

Always a spicy topic here on HN.

I point out to folks that if you look at planets that have high heat load in their atmosphere they also have constant atmospheric storms.

If this planet is typical, what that means is that eventually there will be hurricanes in the mid-latitudes that last for months. Basically one hurricane (or typhoon) slamming into the continent after another. With the higher sea level and hurricane induced storm surge, water levels will have 10 - 30' (3 - 10m) annual fluctuations. Further north and south its just going to be a lot more water during the wet season.

Sadly, if you're reading this it is my expectation you will live to see it happen.

The last month I've thought about this clip at least twice a week.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SYpUSjSgFg

I think about this clip regularly:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi6n_-wB154

It could never happen today unfortunately.

"Once and for all!"

I think of this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNYp6oc37ds

This is the clip that got me to watch the show. Let's be honest, the premise was pretty boring.

So glad I did. Some great acting and really clever writing.

I've actually never watched the show :)

Wow, spot on :)

Yes! And that's what is so interesting about all this (in a very morbid way): it's not as if we didn't know, and it's not as if we do not know. But nothing changes. Massive storms? Check. Maybe not quite at the level alluded to but we're getting there Wildfires out of control? Check. Depending on where you live already too much to deal with, migration is your only option. If you're lucky you can still ignore this one. For now. Global diseases? Check. And that won't stop as habitats dwindle further. But electric cars will surely save us...

As a 'doomer' since 2012, it's also a question of what to do? Gotta pay the bills, and individual changes don't really change the system.

I watched Don't Look Up and the question is what do you do when faced with .. this. Nobody wants to talk about stuff like this, and I don't want to be a "Debbie Downer" [1]. Nobody wants to be told that something they do causes problems and/or harms other people. Otherwise they have to change their behaviour. The normality of it is unreal.

I have the power like a god. I can sit on the toilet taking a nice long dump, and use my cell phone to get food, clothing, and more shelter by touching a screen, and they’ll magically appear. The consequences are far removed from time and space and personal lived experience.

I throw out probably a cubic metre of plastic every day at work.

Also This: http://www.paulchefurka.ca/LadderOfAwareness.html

[1] This is a 90s SNL reference

It's very frustrating. To put it mildly.

"if you set off a rube goldberg type death trap to kill someone, if its a long enough machine, it ceases to become your fault if somebody dies at the end."

"If you want something to sound profound, put it between quotation marks"

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

Yeah Latin works too.

if it would help that i would be more direct for you, i mean to say i think those who both knew and continued to make extreme profits off of oil extraction at the expense of a planets worth of people should be considered murderers.

and lacking judicial means for justice due to those same murderers control of most governments, i predict they will probably be executed by small vigilante groups in the middle of the night, though mobs with torches and pitchforks are also a possibility.

but that kind of statement and that rising sentiment behind it is generally scrubbed off the internet. who knows why, maybe its not profound enough.

Not a great analogy. It doesn't matter how big the rube goldberg machine is if there was only one input to begin with, it would still trace back to that input. The problem with climate is that there are billions of inputs spanning centuries. Trying to assign blame is a waste of time anyway, time that we don't have.

It's a great analogy for what they were pointing out. The point is not that these issues are traceable and thus inarguably someone's fault. The point is many times people don't have to take responsibility for these issues because they are indirect. The more indirect (the larger the Rube Goldberg Machine) the higher chance of avoiding responsibility.

Then perhaps we need to reframe the issue from one of "taking responsibility" to one of "this is what we need to change in order to survive".

That's a much harder problem :)

I wish we rephrased stuff by mentioning actors:

“Our careless actions have resulted in an unprecedented and alarming heatwave in the sea.”

The placement is not random.

Spain and France have Nuclear estuaries north of this area and the mistral pushes the hot surface water south.

http://move.rupy.se/file/nuclear-sources.png

We are going through a very active solar cycle reaching the probable maximum. The sun is pumping out a lot more energy than normal. To ignore the sun as a relevant factor for warmer summers seems just bad science.

Initially, peak activity was forecast to begin in July 2025. Now, experts believe the cyclical peak is more likely to take place in mid- to late 2024.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/07/14/world/solar-maximum-activ...

I don't think the sun's influence is being ignored.

Sure it does, just read the article from the BBC, not a single place does it mention the current solar maximum.

I don't think a single piece from popular media demonstrates the full spectrum of thought amongst the experts.

If you look at the actual research, solar effects are absolutely being taken into account.

It's not ignored. From NASA:

"The amount of solar energy Earth receives has followed the Sun’s natural 11-year cycle of small ups and downs, with no net increase since the 1950s. Over the same period, global temperature has risen markedly. It is therefore extremely unlikely that the Sun has caused the observed global temperature warming trend over the past half-century."

Relevant figure: https://royalsociety.org/-/media/Royal_Society_Content/polic...

It's not a lot. See also:

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-chan...

If you have better data, I'd like to see it.

>Could warmer ocean temperatures be a sign climate change has progressed further than we thought?

No they are not.

This articles doesn't appear on bbc.co.uk/news homepage so it is of little interest.

"Scientists" are not worried. If "Scientists" were worried theyt would be marching in the streets.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/05/2...

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/scientists-stage-w...

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/10/us/private-jets-climate-p...

The faster humans can get off the planet the better the earth will become.

I don't mind all the climate change talk. But I do mind the symptoms curing. The best people can come up with are fucking electrical cars and artificial meat. Because we too many fucking people to serve natural foods.

What the fuuuck is wrong with us?

I might sound pessimistic but I don't have any faith in humanity as for saving the world. Absolutely none.

Very few are willing to sacrifice what it really takes to adjust. And I get that. It would probably mean we needed to kill a few billion in the west, india and far east. Who wants to join that lottery?

No way.

I want my car, my fairly big house, two kids, my fridge and my flights out when it's cold.

Let it burn for all I care. I hope it will. Because deep inside i know the earth will prevail. Its just a matter of how many humans it will take along with it.

The best we can come up with is not electric cars and synthetic meat but bicycles and vegetables.

When you atrophy on your vegetable only diet, at least you’re guaranteed to be easy to overpower when the meat eaters need to get rid of some people to sustain resources further.

Your hypothetical meat eaters are stuck at the side of the road where they ran out of petrol.

Bartertown vs Flavortown, which will prevail?

The only way any significant fractions will get off the earth is in the metaphoric sense: they died. The energy required to move any even a trivial population people off the planet is not attainable.

I think that's precisely the sense GP meant.

> The faster humans can get off the planet the better the earth will become.

Long term, the earth will be just fine. The only real question is whether or not it will be a good place for people to live on.

Or, as I used to put it: we are causing an imbalance that will be corrected. If we don't correct it, nature will, and nature's methods will be much more cruel than people expect.

Your point reminds me of my favorite guest lecture I've ever seen: https://youtu.be/sI1C9DyIi_8

About 15 minutes in he makes the same point you do.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com