
Climate change now detectable from any single day of weather at global scale - nabla9
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0666-7
======
supercall
People's financial incentives are not aligned with the climate's necessary
modifications. The two won't be aligned until climate passes over its tipping
point and enters an irreversible feedback loop.

~~~
kzrdude
When will incentives ever be aligned with one's own long term interests?

There is reason for despair, that competition to survive the day to day -
everyone needs to get through their week, month and year - will always detract
from the larger concerns about long term sustainability of our civilization
and prosperity.

~~~
CalRobert
I worry that we have removed people's moral agency by normalizing huge debts
for life's necessities. We have the technology to make housing and education
cheap and plentiful, but instead create scarcities and credit to have leverage
over the workforce and keep them working in ways they'd prefer not to. I mean,
every day I think "but guys seriously shouldn't we use all these computers to
work on the metaphorical asteroid heading for Earth??? guys??" But we don't,
myself included, because bills.

~~~
bamboozled
I’ve thought about this a lot too. You feel stuck inside a vortex against your
will at times.

------
Taniwha
Australia is burning, its government doesn't seem to think anything is wrong,
they just want to dig more coal

~~~
mikro2nd
They might not get the chance: latest news[1] this morning is that some of the
coal seams have caught fire underground!

This is catastrophic. Underground coal (and oil) fires are near-impossible to
put out and are generally just left alone to burn, usually for decades
before/if they run out of fuel.

[1]
[https://twitter.com/maetl/status/1213420680579964929?s=20](https://twitter.com/maetl/status/1213420680579964929?s=20)

~~~
squarefoot
If that's the case then it's truly catastrophic. As an example, the Centralia
(USA) mine coal-seam fire started in 1962 is extimated to last for about 250
more years.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia_mine_fire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia_mine_fire)

Assuming we have the technology, removing underground oxygen might help to put
out the underground fires, though I can't imagine any process not involving
either pumping sea water down there which would make the land sterile for
vegetation, or slowly replacing oxygen with CO2 which would be even worse.

~~~
blueatlas
Carbondale, PA tried flooding and other techniques for the time (1950's), but
ultimately the only way to extinguish it was by digging it out. It took about
10 years and it is estimated more earth than the Panama Canal was moved for
the dig. It came within 20 feet of expanding into the core of the city and
leading to what happened in Centrailia.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbondale_mine_fire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbondale_mine_fire)

------
bbeckerman
Publicly funded and supported climate change detection method that is
essential to communicate to the public...behind a paywall. Disappointing at
least.

~~~
conistonwater
[https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0666-7](https://sci-
hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0666-7)

------
aldoushuxley001
Seems fake

------
skilled
Living in Eastern Europe right now. It's +6 Celsius for the last week. Earth
hasn't frozen yet, so if any snow falls it melts in a few hours.

In comparison, when I was growing up here in the 90s; we had solid -30 Celsius
winters for several months.

You _had_ to prepare opposed to nowadays, where buying a winter jacket comes
down to preference. Cold or not cold...

But climate change is a hoax, right?

~~~
haunter
I mean I live in Eastern Europe too, Hungary and it's -7c now. No snow but
everything is frozen. I don't think our local experiences are a good
indicator.

>we had solid -30 Celsius winters for several months

I'm curious, do you have any data source about that? -30c for several months
sounds really extreme

~~~
skilled
Why would you ask me for data when you can look that up for yourself?

I speak from experience.

~~~
bureaucrat
>I was growing up here in the 90s; we had solid -30 Celsius winters for
several months.

Where? In your imagination?

[https://weatherspark.com/h/y/148642/1990/Historical-
Weather-...](https://weatherspark.com/h/y/148642/1990/Historical-Weather-
during-1990-at-Kyiv-Zhuliany-International-Airport-Ukraine)

[https://weatherspark.com/h/y/148509/1990/Historical-
Weather-...](https://weatherspark.com/h/y/148509/1990/Historical-Weather-
during-1990-at-Ellinik%C3%B3n-Airport-Greece)

[https://weatherspark.com/h/y/148455/1990/Historical-
Weather-...](https://weatherspark.com/h/y/148455/1990/Historical-Weather-
during-1990-at-Belgrade-Nikola-Tesla-Airport-Serbia)

[https://weatherspark.com/h/y/148594/1990/Historical-
Weather-...](https://weatherspark.com/h/y/148594/1990/Historical-Weather-
during-1990-at-Loshitsa-Minsk-International-1-Belarus)

~~~
dang
Please don't be a jerk in HN comments. If you have correct information, it's
enough to provide that without crossing into personal attack. These threads
are flamewar prone enough as it is.

~~~
skilled
Maybe I should have prefaced my last sentence in the original comment with a
fat /sarcasm tag. I know it's a sensitive topic but I appreciate you pointing
out the insensitivity in my reply.

------
buboard
it would be naive/foolish to expect that the enormous technological progress
and overpopulation by humans would not affect the environment. The question is
how fast can people and ecosystems adapt. This is not the first nor the
biggest change the earth has seen by far. It's also naive to think that
politics is going to reverse that change - it's a technological problem.

~~~
kmlx
the overpopulation mantra has been debunked so many times already.

edit: since i'm getting downvoted for pointing out the obvious, here's links
pointing out that overpopulation is a myth, even a racist one in some
circumstances:

wapo: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-
the...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-the-worlds-
population/2011/10/26/gIQArjSWmM_story.html)

[https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/fee.org/articles/the-myth-
tha...](https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-the-
world-is-facing-a-population-crisis//amp)

[https://www.pop.org/debunking-the-myth-of-
overpopulation/](https://www.pop.org/debunking-the-myth-of-overpopulation/)

[https://www.globaljustice.org.uk/blog/2019/mar/9/how-
racist-...](https://www.globaljustice.org.uk/blog/2019/mar/9/how-racist-myths-
built-population-growth-bogey-man)

kurzgesagt: [https://youtu.be/QsBT5EQt348](https://youtu.be/QsBT5EQt348)

the guardian:
[https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/mar/19/overpopulatio...](https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/mar/19/overpopulation-
cities-environment-developing-world-racist-paul-ehrlich)

nytimes: [https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/14/opinion/overpopulation-
is...](https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/14/opinion/overpopulation-is-not-the-
problem.html)

[https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/25/overpopulation-the-
de...](https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/25/overpopulation-the-deadly-myth-
behind-the-other-modern-myths/)

~~~
K0SM0S
Indeed, if we only think in terms of thermodynamics, the Earth could sustain
_trillions_ of people with ample private room (orders of magnitude more than
our current average home+office size). And if you trickle down to
implementation problems (agriculture, logistics, etc) and take mega-structures
of the 25th century out from the equation (so, immediate future, 21st century)
you still get a max figure north of 10 times the current pop.

The problem is one of contrast: e.g. there's nobody in deserts but people die
everyday in overcrowded train stations in India. That's why people perceive
"overpopulation" as a problem, but it has more to do with human inefficiency
than the physics of our planet.

However GP's point about adaptation speed of our civilization to the changing
ecosystem stands.

I sometimes wonder, between utopia and horror, how many people will have to
die in the name of climate catastrophes for a global "survival instinct" to
kick in at the highest level — like stability is a thing for the finance
world, the military world, because we're so aware of how much these things may
destroy or kill when derailed.

I'm pretty much convinced it's generational — boomers will never get to it,
not enough of them; half of gen Xers might sway; but millenials (born 1982 and
on) will enact the tipping point, politically and sociologically. So, that's
2030-2040 mechanically for that gen to become the dominant one (by then aged
50-60).

My question is, how many will climate kill or hurt deeply until then? Could
the tipping point happen sooner due to catastrophes?

I don't know what's a reasonable fair estimate, here. Are we talking millions?
tens, hundreds? a billion? How dire is the situation, really?

~~~
kmlx
i think we've been adapting to our ecosystem since humans first came into the
scene.

the only difference now is that we finally realised we're living on a planet
that's not constant, but actually changing. this realisation is a positive in
my book, as an extinction level event is always around the corner.

re. how many will die: the plague has been constantly killing humans for
almost 1000 years now. and we're still here. yes, i'm an optimist.

~~~
K0SM0S
I pretty much share all your views, here.

My everlasting-optimism is only tempered by a somewhat keen awareness of that
Fermi paradox thingy, a Darwinian observation that species just disappear and
the world just keeps spinning.

I think the greatest invincible filter — one we just couldn't overcome — is
the idea of a fatal flaw in our genetic make-up, or relatingly in the
evolution of our environment, that we simply couldn't fix in time (it could be
hidden, insiduous, e.g. increasingly more 'cancers' until we become born with
it in majority).

In many instances, species do not entirely die from such evolutionary filters,
a few survivors with just the right genes may appear and spread their
immunity.

But in many instances, species just die at those filters. We still don't
really know why Neanderthal disappeared, iirc there are clues pointing at a
possible genetic flaw, combined with environmental pressure (sorta contra-
variant doom scenario).

Which is why I think we should massively spend to solve as much of the "bio"
stuff as we can, grab all low-hanging fruits _now_ and buckle up to kick off
major projects spanning generations. The value and security to be gained, in
terms of ultimate survival and progress, is just too critical to miss or
delay. IMHO. And it's likely to take all of tech with it, a poster-child
client sector to buy and fund all manners of extravagantly awesome technology.

I'd be curious to know how your optimism shapes things in imagination,
regarding our past and/or future. :)

~~~
kmlx
I think the Fermi paradox is BS. we're stuck on this small planet, never
having set foot on another planet, nevermind another solar system. we haven't
even encountered a single, no matter how small, alien life. and yet we come up
with these naive theories. this tells me we're simply not ready for the
possibilities that await us out there. maybe in the future.

and since you asked about the future, i want my "self" to be moved to a
computer, set to sleep mode and then woken up once it reaches alpha centauri
or something similarly far away. no body, no problems. right now that's pretty
much the only way to discover anything light years away without our Earth-
bound energy converter aka human body that comes with a billion dependencies
and dramatically tiny life span.

but we're really discussing sci fi stuff. i hope that in the meantime the
global warming fight will not drag the whole earth back a few hundred years
instead of fixing by innovation.

~~~
K0SM0S
Transforming the biological physical _body_ into a biological 'pure
information' 'energy-encoded' _system_ (well, just software, but with
incredibly specific rules) is one of my favorite ideas in SF. I tried to write
a book including that 10 years ago, and while I'm a lazy fiction author, the
thinking experiments were great.

I called this new species "energeans", functionally termed "Maxwell organisms"
in a nod to the 19th century genius. Humans individuals become 'permanent,
self-consistent' organized energy 'fields' of sorts (to preserve continuity,
the sense of "self", as one's energy goes through machines (as electrons
probably), space (as photons), etc.

It's totally whack physics as we speak outside some incredibly controlled lab,
but it's fun to think about. :)

The Fermi paradox, I agree it's probably BS (but that's really just belief as
we speak). I like to use it as a reminder of some "unknown known" (that _we_
might not know, but _others_ do), like

"civilization is possibly very, very hard";

or "we are so far away from big boys science that we grasp at space with tiny
sticks like ants carry food, being silently observed by the equivalent of
humans — so, so much above and beyond our very perception";

and my nagging favorite is a hypothesis that maybe, just maybe, what we think
we "see" in space is really not what's actually out there — like Bohr's model
of the atom with valency etc. was/is totally fine functionally (afaik we still
do basic chemistry with it?), but not at all a "picture" of reality. Hence
we'd be looking for caterpillars when all there is to see are butterflies —
energeians? holo-trickery? nano-robotic swarms? blackhole farming? 5, 11, 23
dimensional space? And most being non-exclusive with others.

One thing seems sure to me: the most fundamental thing we might have right now
is a quantum interpretation of Shannon's information theory, and going by
that, there's a long way ahead of us until we reach "hard limits". It's crazy
to think what this universe allows if you give it enough time and energy.

Here's to your last sentence being true. I must admit, I have confidence in
the eventual resolution in a "decently near" future (~100 years at most), but
I'm increasingly worried about the chaos/transition — if history is any
indication, which it absolutely is imho, it's gonna cost too many lives and
too much despair for too many people, whereas some will undoubtedly manage to
turn the outcome to their advantage — even better off on the other side, like
the "Great Heist of 1929", and it seems to me most majors periods of intense
and prolonged chaos.

------
SimplePotato
Yes everything is completely messed up. Flowers blooming at wrong times of the
year, animals are confused, crops are being beaten up by the biggest hail,
Winds are getting stronger and this and that etc. Mother earth didn't even
show the real teeth yet. When one of the the super Vulcanos wakes up we'll see
the real hell on the earth. There is also super hostile environment outside
earth but this is for some other space debate.

------
bamboozled
It’s likely to kill everyone of us. From the rich to the poor, strong to the
weak, through famine, war and drought. Natural disaster after natural
disaster. Horror after horror. Tragedy after tragedy.

Yet we’re all in state of paralysis, watching our impending doom draw closer
and fates unfold. Entrusting those who will do nothing about it. Half of us
are still in denial.

I really wonder if we possess the survival instincts we think we do. Do we
really have the drive to go on ?

Were humans just lucky to be installed on this beautiful blue spaceship. Do we
deserve any merit for our past success? We are just limp and powerless to do
anything about it all it seems.

Such a strange time to be alive, what a peculiar situation we’re in. Quite the
nightmare indeed.

~~~
hsavit1
500 million animals wiped out in the blink of an eye and we look the other
way. When humans start dying, I think we will continue to look the other way.

~~~
bamboozled
Hardly a whimper for them.

------
manigandham
Does anyone have a link to the paper?

Also climate _change_ is undeniable. At the risk of stirring the controversy,
the real questions have always been: how much of it is because of human
activity? and if that's significant, how much power do we have to change it
further?

Based on the evidence so far, I personally think modern civilization has
triggered initial conditions for the warming cycle but is no longer the
majority force for the continued change.

~~~
akvadrako
That is almost reasonable. But it's still naturalistic thinking, i.e. whatever
happens without humans is good.

The real questions should be: what climate do we want and how much power do we
have to effect it?

If the climate changes naturally but we don't want it and can stop it, maybe
we should. For example, we expect this interglacial period to end between
years 10k - 30k, corresponding to about a 10°C drop.

Also, the way best way to reverse current climate trends might be different
then stopping the major cause.

~~~
manigandham
> " _how much power do we have to effect it_ "

This is entirely predicated on understanding how much we _have_ affected it so
far and how that effect has changed over time. How do we know we can stop it?
Are efforts toward stopping it (given the Earth has gone through cycles
before) more useful than adapting?

Blindly saying we can reverse something that we can't and instead should be
adapting for is just as bad. Unfortunately any discussion around this is
constantly devolves into emotional dispute rather than rational debate.

~~~
akvadrako
> This is entirely predicated on understanding how much we have affected it so
> far

Obviously, this isn't true. It's possible to have a future effect on things
you haven't yet changed and visa versa.

~~~
manigandham
I never said it's not possible. I'm asking how do we know how much we can
effect it in the future if we're not entirely clear on how much we've affected
it so far and how that effect has changed itself?

Or do you already have an answer to the 2nd question you posed?

~~~
akvadrako
Just because you know how much effect you’ve had doesn’t mean you know how
much control you have.

They are related but the relationship is not clear.

And only the second question matters.

~~~
manigandham
To be clear, any forecast requires a model based on previous historical data.
Otherwise it's not a forecast, it's just a random guess.

------
beefield
I'm quite tired of the framing of the climate change discussion, whether it
exists or not. It is like you pondering whether your house is going to
actually burn next year or not when you think about purchasing insurance.
Completely idiotic question. What you are thinking is the _risk_ (i.e
probability times loss) of your house burning. So no, I am not going to tell
you that the climate catastrophe is going to happen. What I do say is that
even if after reframing the discussion from dichotomy to probability
discussion, if you really think that the probability of the scientists being
collectively wrong is so small that the science can be ignored, in my books
you are so f$&king stupid[1] that you should give up your voting rights.

[1] pardon, I think my french is a bit rusty here.

~~~
brobdingnagians
It is important to distinguish the basis of the change. Whether anthropogenic
or of other causes (or, likely, a mix of causes). The same change in weather
could have different responses based on the cause. It is also important to
talk about what to change. Some governmental/industrial changes could cause
the deaths of millions or billions of people (doing absolutely nothing might
do the same), it is important to have a civil conversation where the ideas and
rights of all are respected, understood, and considered. Oversimplifying is
not useful. I'm not arguing for any specific reason or changes, only for
civility and all around thoughtfulness. It is a very complex issue that may
impact a huge number of factors in society. Great caution, civility, and
thought should be given. Even to those who disagree with some conclusions.
Advocating for the removal of voting rights for those who disagree so that we
can arrange their future for them may be counterproductive.

~~~
beefield
> Advocating for the removal of voting rights for those who disagree so that
> we can arrange their future for them may be counterproductive.

I disagree slightly. Not "may be" but "is" counterproductive. Occasionally you
just need to vent out actual opinions and ignore the productivity...

------
jokoon
The only way to get out of this situation is a green dictatorship. It's the
least painful solution. Democracy and freedom are great things, but
consumerism abused them, and it's leading everyone to their own destruction.
I'm tired to end discussions with "but you cannot confiscate things from
people, it's against basic human rights". Ignorance and failure to listen to
reason are very dangerous.

I want to hope people will adjust deliberately, but advertising has too much
power over people. I cannot let myself gamble with the idea that humanity will
be courageous enough to avoid destruction of this scale. The stakes are too
high.

History always worked like this. It's a collection of new lessons that adjust
the collective consciousness.

The future will progressively look like some Hollywood dystopia, until
something will break politically, but it will be too late. Don't forget that
the new deadline is the melting permafrost, which will snowball climate change
into something that will make temperature rise much faster.

~~~
CM30
If you really want to kick off another civil war/world war, something like
this seems like the perfect way to do so. If people tried to enforce
environmentalism via a dictatorship, the rest of the population would like
fight back hard, and they'd end up in a very awkward situation very quickly.
Remember, the people who would want to limit other people's consumption for
environmentalism sakes are significantly outnumbered and outgunned by those
who don't.

It would also likely inspire an awful lot of anti intellectualism and anti
'ivory tower' resentment, which could have terrible consequences for the
future.

Basically, any attempt would go about as well as someone walking into the
middle east and trying to set up a secular dictatorship in the style of the
USSR.

Of course, a cynic may say that's the only way to deal with climate change and
they may be right. It's just that trying to fix things via force would
probably go even more poorly than trying to persuade people to live less
comfortably would.

Unfortunately, the most likely fixes right now are probably:

A: Some sort of miraculous new technology is invented that can cheaply do
carbon capture and provide enough clean energy that fossil fuels are made
completely obsolete.

B: Somehow, a huge push is made for mastering space travel, and people are
incentivised to leave Earth. A sentient species with an advanced civilisation
may simply be incompatible with other life on a planet.

C: Society gets wrecked enough that humanity somehow ends back in a pre
industrial revolution state, perhaps due to the side effects of climate
change.

D: Humanity simply decides they can't fix Earth, doesn't try and edits
themselves/civilisation to deal with rampant temperature
increases/disasters/whatever.

~~~
nopriorarrests
>Basically, any attempt would go about as well as someone walking into the
middle east and trying to set up a secular dictatorship in the style of the
USSR.

Maybe I'm not getting your point, but Assad regime is secular dictatorship,
more or less? So if you wanted to say that this is something completely
impossible, well, the metaphor is not quite correct. And Iran before 1979
revolution could be considered secular dictatorship as well.

~~~
CM30
Might have not been the best example. Either way, the point being, trying to
enforce environmentalism by force would probably annoy the majority of the
population enough that your government wouldn't remain in power for very long.

~~~
jokoon
The problem is that what is required to do will annoy everyone, no matter the
angle. Withdrawal from abusive consumerism is going to be ugly, that's the
issue, but it's necessary.

A green dictatorship would signal that everyone is given equal treatment. It's
also an emergency measure.

Of course the word "dictatorship" has a very bad connotation here, because it
implies oppression and violation of human rights, but that's not what I am
advocating.

I am advocating for the revocation of the right to emit co2. It is a very
strong restriction when look around you, because consumers are really friendly
towards their lifestyle which directly finance lobbying efforts to avoid a
carbon tax.

What is needed to do, while the industry adapt, is to allow the minimum,
necessary items people needs to live: food, water, hygiene, shelter etc. while
diminishing co2 emissions to their most lowest possible, and let industry to
work without emissions to gradually change their process.

You cannot trust the industry to reduce emissions and do a slow switch because
it's going to be too slow, and you cannot trust liberalism to find quick
solutions if there is no strong enough incentives. Lobbies are never going to
let change happen. It's going to be too slow and chaotic, not to mention fraud
and people who will disagree with human responsibility.

Look at Tocqueville. Democracy is great, but when there is urgency about a
complicated problem, democracy can be a problem.

~~~
CM30
The issue isn't that drastic action is not/may not be necessary, it's that the
vast majority of the population will not just 'give up on consumerism' for a
perceived long term benefit, and any political attempt to make them will be
met with a huge amount of backlash and instability.

If a political party or politician proposed what you're saying, they probably
wouldn't get elected. If they tried it when in power, then the next party who
gets elected would probably withdraw said restrictions. If they tried to 'turn
off democracy' to do this, then people would get extremely angry, probably
revolt and there would be a huge debacle. Especially given that worldwide,
it'd be seen as an authoritarian coup in a democratic society, and responded
to with economic sanctums, anger on the international stage and perhaps a
war/support for overthrowing the government.

The problem isn't that such a dictatorship or authoritarian rule is
necessarily against the long term interests of the population (though many
authoritarian regimes (including China) would argue the same thing for their
countries). It's that it's not democratic, not backed by most of the
population and (perhaps rightly) seen as an alarming development in a
country's history.

~~~
jokoon
It's not democratic, so what? It doesn't mean it's not necessary. Democracy
doesn't always work for the public interest.

> seen as an alarming development in a country's history.

What do you mean? How would "an alarming development" be problematic?
Democracy or not, action is required, and despite knowledge of the problem, I
don't see any progress. I have nothing against democracy.

> and any political attempt to make them will be met with a huge amount of
> backlash and instability.

I think there is enough support for drastic measures, I don't think
instability is a big risk. And if there is not enough support today, there
will be more at each new heatwave and forest fire.

