
Can We Delay a Greenhouse Warming? (1983) [pdf] - glhaynes
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/9101HEAX.PDF?Dockey=9101HEAX.PDF
======
glhaynes
[https://twitter.com/davelevitan/status/1100141281332940802?s...](https://twitter.com/davelevitan/status/1100141281332940802?s=21)
Twitter thread with some choice quotes

------
jonbronson
Terribly sad to see that the Fossil Fuel industry has waged such an effective
stall campaign for as long as it has. We're all the victims for it.

~~~
anigbrowl
As long as they keep getting away with it they will continue to corrupt our
institutions.

------
js2
Relevant piece, _Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change_
(covers the time frame when this was published), was discussed here:

[https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/01/magazine/clim...](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/01/magazine/climate-
change-losing-earth.html)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17661450](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17661450)

------
mrfusion
It looks like they were predicting a 3-4 degree celcious increase by 2020 if
I’m reading the chart right. I wonder why that didn’t materialize? Maybe more
warming later on.

~~~
specialist
IIRC, while the paper notes the ocean serves as a carbon sink, its capacity
was not yet known, and that it later proved much larger than anticipated.

------
fallingfrog
It's pretty remarkable that in the first paragraph they say that the
temperature increase is likely to be about 2 degrees C by the middle of the
21st century and about 5 degrees by the year 2100. And that's almost exactly
what we're on track for now.

~~~
fallingfrog
Downvotes. Really guys. I’m just saying, it’s impressive that they were that
accurate with the primitive models they had way back in 1983.

------
ThomPete
Interesting.

It's funny how the conversation have changed now to Climate Change instead of
global warming.

A lot of this has been pushed by the environmental organizations who despite
their claims that CO2 is the biggest threat to humankind still are
overwhelmingly against nuclear energy despite it being both safer, more
scaleable, more reliable and actually able to provide energy compared to
unrealiables like wind and sun.

If anything this just shows how long this discussion have been going on and
how much of this is politics and ideology rather than science.

~~~
dang
You've posted about this a lot, and your comments are unfortunately crossing
into flamewar at times. We've had to warn you about this before. Can you
please reduce the quantity and increase the quality of what you post? Remember
that the guidelines say: "Comments should get more civil and substantive, not
less, as a topic gets more divisive."

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

~~~
ThomPete
Hi Dang,

Fair enough, I will try and reduce my comments on this topic but people are
asking me questions often with lots of personal attacks in there and I am
trying to answer the questions.

I am seriously trying to understand how my comment is not mostly civil or
substantive or how they are crossing into flamewar which is defined as:

"A flame war is a series of flame posts or messages in a thread that are
considered derogatory in nature or are completely off-topic. Often these
flames are posted for the sole purpose of offending or upsetting other users."

That's not at all my intention quite the contrary. I am trying to get balance
into the very one-sided nature of this debate which is easily verified by
looking at the claims of the posted articles/essays.

I am totally fine with being in the minority when it comes to what I think is
substantive but I frankly do not see how it's not civil any more than some of
the comments I get which doesn't get treated or told off or downvoted into
oblivion.

~~~
dang
By 'flamewar' I mean the kind of internet discussion that gets angrier and
shallower as it goes along, typically on divisive topics, typically repeating
things that have been said many times before, with people trying to defeat
rather than connect with each other. There's no intellectual curiosity in
those arguments, so they're off topic here.

Also, they're tedious, except to the minority whose passions happen to be
inflamed on that topic, and people tend not to know when to stop. These are
the sorts of thread that make HN worse, and which all users are asked to have
the discipline to refrain from. I know it's hard sometimes.

I'm sure that some of the replies you're getting are also breaking the
guidelines, but we don't see all of those. Flagging them helps bring them to
our attention. If there's anything particularly abusive you can email us at
hn@ycombinator.com.

------
mrlatinos
The solution is to curb development in countries like India. But good luck
selling that idea.

Instead, let's over-regulate Western markets, because there's definitely not
any private investment going towards renewable energy, and the US definitely
doesn't lead in carbon emission reduction /s

~~~
keithnz
given US is one of the biggest contributors in absolute terms and also is
incredibly high in per person terms, surely that's the best place to start.

~~~
mrlatinos
What about in terms of GDP?

~~~
wk_end
The US is the world leader in GDP.

