To be fair, we didn't have the World Food Programme in 1877 which lets us anticipate droughts distribution and crop failures months ahead of time.
That being said, the existing energy crisis and fertilizer crisis can significantly compound the negative impacts of this El Niño even if we are able to anticipate it.
Many farmers are subsidised specifically so that food is over-produced in most years, specifically to ensure than in bad years people don't go hungry.
Corporations may indeed be taking advantage of this, demanding prices so low that the farmers don't get the benefit of those subsidies. However:
> buy the stuff and sell it at a premium later
Is the point of a futures market. Futures let people trade a thing before they even know how supply and demand will balance, guaranteeing a price for the producer and letting them plan purchases of machinery and maintenance, with the risks (in bad years) and profit margins (in good years) going up the supply chain.
If you think that is going to happen, you can buy up some supplies and store them yourself. I have relatives with some impressive and substantial pantries because they're prepared to be snowed in for an extended period of time. Running out of food is possible the least novel problem humanity has ever encountered.
And what would you rather happen? If they don't store up a surplus then everyone will run out of food and prices will go up anyway. If there is less food because of a drought, prices are going up. If corporations start building up a stockpile then prices aren't going to go up as much as if there were no reserves.
TLDR; Yes. Good. It is a great day when there is food available at the local supermarket.
If the plan isn't to stockpile food communally through a big corporation making a tidy profit for being well prepared in a disaster, and it isn't to stockpile it personally... what is the plan? There won't be any food.
There are very limited options here. Those two are, by far, the two best ones for reliably being able to access food. Someone has to build up a reserve. Literally, you should to be able to point someone out and say "this person will give me food next month, they've got a stockpile for this drought".
Ideally that someone who is very, very motivated to get it right and make it happen. Those big corporations charging extra are going to keep people fed.
> The world is bigger than your relatives.
I offer no commentary on the size of my relatives vs. the rest of the world :)
There is another option than individuals vs corporations though: The government could and should provide for it's citizens. That is what a welfare state is all about: useing the taxes it collects from its citizens for the common good.
I know, to the US centric crowd at HN that probably sounds insane, but as a Scandinavian this is what I would have expected in the past (though probably not these days).
I mean sure but if we're just going to give people the money to buy food what is the complaint about big corporations charging more?
It isn't like anyone would be unable to afford food, because a welfare state would imply a standing agreement to buy everyone food at the taxpayer's expense if required. And it is entirely reasonable for prices to go up when there is a shortage, the people who built up stockpiles in advance need to be compensated for their foresight. Someone has to be stockpiling food.
"Communally" and "through a big corporation making a tidy profit" are at odds.
It's either for and by the community or it's for and by a big corporation profiteering off the misfortune of the community. It can't be both at the same time.
The big corporations aren't "going to keep people fed", they will hoard and ration by wealth, not by need. The billionaire will get their twenty course fine dining experience, the beggar will starve. That's not keeping the people fed by any serious definition of the term.
A modern 1877 scale event would probably immediately fuel (pun intended) a furious climate change debate, even though attributing the existence of the El Niño itself to fossil fuels would not be scientifically justified... or maybe was the 1877 El Niño caused by fossil fuels (so many Wars happened in those years) ?
in one hand i wanted to highlight that if it was today, we - as civilization - would definitely create a link between the events, based on our "feeling"
in another hand, i question if we really could rule out, since back in the days, everything that we have was coal.
Remember that this is just a piece of the complex system that is the global climate. And over it, there are more systems affected, including human ones like food production or economy. Something this extreme may cause from a severe disruption or a permanent instability in those systems, specially considering feedback loops in all of them.
The author is saying the surface of the ocean (where it's easiest to measure temps, so we do that the most) is the 'footprint' or the full colum of warm water below it. Additionally, like a footprint the surface area it represents might be smaller too as warm water continues to rise.
I don't know enough about climate science, but south swell usually is the result of west-to-east storms coming off of Australia. In Hawaii, this summer's south swell has been extremely consistent big swells. I imagine it's something like the west coast off South America heating up causes the balance of the southern hemisphere off Africa to counteract that.
I'm currently sitting in the middle of 100mph gusting winds as every island in Hawaii is under hurricane or tropical storm warning, with at least 100k people without power right now. Hurricane season in Hawaii is usually in Sept/Oct.
Hurricane season in Hawaii is June through November. August and September have always been peak months. It's completely normal to have hurricanes at this time of year.
It is dry heat, if you look at it from certain point of view. I once experienced smth like 27-28°C with fog, 100% humidity. Was almost as bad as 40°C with low humidity.
And if it would be 42°C/107°F with fog and 100% humidity, lots of people would be dead already. But it’s more like saying “at least this building is not on fire right now”. Or 1km wide meteor is not crashing down. It is not, and anything near 40°C is really unpleasant, regardless of burning homes and falling meteors.
Car temperature sensors tend to be inaccurate because they're often in the Sun or some other place affected by baking a car not in a garage.
Check a thermometer in the shade. The weather data stations reported an average of 101 ℉ / 38 ℃ for Waco. It's hot, and especially feels worse with Southern subtropical humidity. OTOH, 101 in California with 0-15% humidity, it would just be a bit annoying. Higher humidity makes heat qualitatively exponentially worse until it's a sauna.
It's 96 ℉ / 36 °C @ 60% humidity every day for 5 months in hill country with no rain in sight. The El Niňo rain may not get here until November. We're right at the 100 meridian west so it's between hot semi-arid (BSH) and humid subtropical (Cfa), and most storms seem to bypass us to the north by about 20 miles. It was growing zone 8b but changed +3 ℉ to 9a in 10 years.
Meanwhile West Antarctic ice shelf barely clutching on.
No direct link, but click the "anomaly" map button just underneath the map. Hello all these similar 10+ °C anomalies that have sat around. Some colder spots too that have hung around! But yikes.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/?dm_id=world
I at least think of El Nino kind of running into South, building up in the Pacific. But the heat cuts across, then down, and pools in Antarctica here, is how I read it.
People really don’t appreciate yet. How really bad this situation is and will be. They’re talking about 1.76°C higher temperatures next year because of this El Niño. Those are climate change temperatures that are not supposed to be around until 2035. So it’ll give us a sneak peek into our future.
But the biggest effect and this is noted by many insurance companies now is going to be in places like India.
But this is something the world has never seen and I mean that literally so I don’t expect it to be anything but really bad and you should be ready.
It was inevitable we'd get to the point where climate change began substantially disrupting ecology and human livelihoods. Looks like we're ahead of schedule.
People dying from extreme heatwaves, weather, and famines due to climate change has been predicted for decades at this point; and this is exactly the sort of climatic setup that will enable this to happen.
> People dying from extreme heatwaves, weather, and famines due to climate change has been predicted for decades at this point; and this is exactly the sort of climatic setup that will enable this to happen.
Yeah, people have been "predicting" it, but the fact is that this is currently mostly hyperbole, driven by bad reporting and activist exaggeration.
What is happening, right now, is that winters are mostly getting warmer. Summers are getting hotter in certain places, but not at nearly the rate that cold days are decreasing -- and the evidence is weaker on a global scale. From the IPCC 6AR report, figure 11-9 shows it clearly:
Even the IPCC report only gets to the "virtually certain" evidence level by combining the two claims:
> The frequency and intensity of hot extremes (including heatwaves) have increased, and those of cold extremes have decreased on the global scale since 1950 (virtually certain).
That's because, when you actually look at the data, it is abundantly clear that the increase in hot extremes are far less common than the decrease in cold extremes. Of course, when you take the ratio of the two, this looks worse, because the denominator is getting smaller.
Chapter 11 is worth reading. You will be shocked how many of the widely reported memes about extreme weather and climate are just not supported by good data:
I recommend in particular going through the figures, and looking at how many of them are model predictions (nearly all), versus plots of historical data. Setting aside the debates about model quality, etc., surely we can all agree that predictions are not evidence?
Your linked figure confirms that 2018 was cooler than things are today.
The chapter 11 temperature over view is concerning for the consequences:
The frequency and intensity of hot extremes will continue to increase and those of cold extremes will continue to decrease, at global and continental scales and in nearly all inhabited regions with increasing global warming levels.
This will be the case even if global warming is stabilized at 1.5°C.
Relative to present-day conditions, changes in the intensity of extremes would be at least double at 2°C, and quadruple at 3°C of global warming, compared to changes at 1.5°C of global warming.
...
The frequency of hot temperature extreme events will very likely increase nonlinearly with increasing global warming, with larger percentage increases for rarer events.
It's the harder to precisely predict potential tipping point changes that should really concern and motivate global changes to emissions.
> Your linked figure confirms that 2018 was cooler than things are today.
So? what does that have to do with the question at hand? An 8 year change is irrelevant in the world of climate science. It's statistical noise in a system where cycles run for decades. Weather, not climate.
> The chapter 11 temperature over view is concerning for the consequences:
...and then you quote the part that says exactly what I explained to you, as some kind of counter-argument?
You will note that the part you quoted is, again, combining the types of extremes. They're not talking about just hot days.
I honestly do not understand this need to fatalize data. You don't have a counterargument (because what I said was factually true) so your only rebuttal is to wave your hands and say that it's all scary.
We can be honest -- the world is getting warmer -- and admit when the people predicting imminent death and destruction are exaggerating. This is good!
As the original poster you replied to, why do you think it's exaggeration to predict that people will die from increasingly strong heatwaves? This is already happening [0]. And: "For 2022, it was estimated that between 60,000 and 70,000 people in Europe died from heat (Ballester et al., 2023; Ballester et al., 2024)"
It's extremely hypocritical of you to accuse me of exaggerating when your own presentation of facts is selective and not-representative of what we are seeing globally. An El Niño will only exacerbate heatwaves in some parts of the planet over the next 24 months.
Your first link says that more people died this year, relative to predictions for this year, because of a single heat wave. This has ~nothing to do with the discussion at hand, and is a classic example of the sort of hyperbole I am talking about.
The second link says that heat events kill people in the UK. Fine. It links to a single paper claiming that:
> half of the heat-related deaths in Europe in the summer of 2022 have been attributed to anthropogenic climate change (Beck et al., 2024).
Regardless of the quality of the cited paper, this is a far cry from evidence of a trend.
> It's extremely hypocritical of you to accuse me of exaggerating when your own presentation of facts is selective and not-representative of what we are seeing globally.
You're literally exaggerating, right now. I quoted the latest IPCC report and told you factually what it says. You linked to a press release and a UK climate portal page that don't support what you're insuinating.
> This has nothing to do with the discussion at hand
This is a topic concerning El Niño. You acknowledge that the downstream consequences of El Niño effects is amplified heatwaves, presumably. Heatwaves already kill people in many continents globally. It stands to reason _strong_ heatwaves will probably raise mortality further; which is _directly related_ to my original comment.
I don't engage with people who aren't willing to be honest with what the data supports.
> People dying from extreme heatwaves, weather, and famines due to climate change has been predicted for decades at this point; and this is exactly the sort of climatic setup that will enable this to happen.
The rhetoric is all well and good, but if you look at the numbers according to the WMO[0], deaths from climate-related hazards have been dropping steadily in the 50-year period from 1970 to 2019, even as atmospheric CO2 went from ~326ppm to ~410ppm and the world population more than doubled. That's not a per capita decrease; it's an absolute decrease, from over 50k deaths worldwide the 70s to fewer than 20k in the 2010s.
All of this is due to the increased ability of humans to deal with what the climate might throw at them, mostly due to cheap energy unlocked by fossil fuels during that time. Remember, there are no countries that are both rich and have a low per capita energy usage. Surplus energy allows humans to build the infrastructure that makes them more resilient to disasters.
If I had to wager, more people will suffer and die in the coming decades from efforts to combat climate change (i.e. hamstring energy production and usage) than from climate change itself. You can already see this in the anti-air conditioning sentiment in parts of Europe.
Look, I think you made some good points, but at the same time, humans have become better at handling the climate because we’ve been able to predict it and have found solutions to certain known issues. What happens when it gets less predictable, like when certain regions get much less water for an extended period, is very much unknown.
Your last claim makes no sense. Is there actually a widespread political effort to ban air conditioning or make it hard to get in Europe? That certainly isn’t the case in the US. And yet hot summers are still killer in cities which aren’t accustomed to them: that’s climate change doing the killing.
Solar is just about the most abundant source of energy on the planet, and easily decentralized. Plugin solar is becoming increasingly popular and cheap, for example.
I think energy production would be much more abundant and directly in control of the people if governments stopped subsidizing energy sources that need massive amounts of resources just to keep running. Why not give solar an advantage when every watt installed can just… work by itself for the next three decades? Every watt of a gas plant needs you to figure out who to buy gas from forever.
Regarding air conditioning in Europe, I suspect that there are other interests at play given that there has been zero pushback against air conditioning in cars.
Air conditioning in buildings is likely viewed as a threat to gas providers as most modern cooling devices also have a heating mode that competes directly with gas heating.
> Air conditioning in buildings is likely viewed as a threat to gas providers as most modern cooling devices also have a heating mode that competes directly with gas heating.
Not sure it makes sense, most of those countries are already phasing out fuel/gas boilers.
IMO it's just cultural shift is slow to adjust (in those countries, a few decades ago AC would have been a wasteful luxury, summer temperature would be well below 30 except for a few days).
At least here in the UK, recent revisions to the default planning rules around heat pumps (“Permitted Development” legislation) removed the restriction that an install be “used solely for heating purposes” and revised this to “not be used solely for the purpose of cooling”.
The Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant also permits cooling - it’s based on the heating credentials of a unit only.
So in Britain at least, installing cooling systems in private residences seems to be getting easier.
> I think energy production would be much more abundant and directly in control of the people if governments stopped...
Lots of people pat themselves on the back for (correctly) believing that climate change is real. Why is it so hard for people to also believe that regulatory capture and oligarchy are real, and directly responsible for the lack of action against climate change?
Think of all the for-profit power utility companies in the US. Why are they for-profit? For that matter, why are ISPs for-profit and not run as non-profits with heavy government assistance? Answer, basically: Because the existing people that make lots of money off them have been lobbying heavily to make it so. Similarly, it is no coincidence the current leadership in the US is actively against renewable energy.
A lot of the existing wealth, especially in North America and Europe was built on top of fossil fuels directly or indirectly (cars, power plants, industries, maintaining diplomatic relations with oil-rich nations). That dependence is hard to unwind and is going to take 50 years or more unless the US electorate can start electing people that believe in climate change. And for this reason, actually addressing climate change is going to come from unintuitive social actions, like making smaller housing more fashionable, moving to urban areas, possibly cracking down heavily on crime in those areas, and financially rewarding the use of public transport and bikes.
Unless stuff like "Why not give solar an advantage..." is a rhetorical question with the answer of "Because lots of current billionaires would make less money", I don't think they are pointing out the same stuff I said.
The two are racing each other. So far, human adaptation is winning. But climate change is just getting started. The change that happened over the last 50 years is tiny compare to what will happen over the next 50. It may well start winning that race.
Death is a feature and not a bug of the system, in my mind atleast. I come from a pretty dysfunctional/chaotic family which sometimes makes me think larger systems have this unpredictability and lack of control too. Do I spend my time studying the dysfunction? Beyond a point its exhausting. Ask anyone who comes from a trauma organized system. For us it is more a relief that there is an exit door out of such traps we are born into. Maybe the buddhist philosophy is a healthier way to think about it - over attachment to anything that is ever changing is the path to suffering.
What is your point? What system are you taking about? Also I don't want to judge but I hope you don't use your past trauma as an excuse for indifference. You can be indifferent but just say so. The fact that you have trauma doesn't give you a leg to stand on. There are plenty of people with trauma and have come out of it. It just sounds rather angsty.
It would've helped a ton but it's not like electricity generation is the only source of emissions. You can't run a car or a plane on nuclear power. You can technically run a cargo ship on nuclear power but that's also not gonna happen. Yet transport is the second largest source of emissions.
Batteries have only recently-ish gotten energy dense and cheap enough for electric cars to be competitive, completely different solutions are needed for long distance shipping by sea or air.
It's the same situation across many other sectors like agriculture, construction and waste management. Lots of things causing emissions that's not electricity generation.
China is the only country that is seriously doing anything about anything. They've single handedly built more renewable energy capacity than every other country combined, they've pulled millions of diesel and gasoline cars off roads, reforested one of the world's biggest deserts, this year they've finally reduced coal usage, and next year the long awaited Tokamak is set to fire for the first time.
The US is busy sending warships across the planet to blow up oil refineries which will be rebuilt. It's not bad enough we are busy grinding sand, but we are actively making things worse.
You can't really have this both ways. Closing Hormuz and blowing up Iranian export facilities has been massively decarbonizing. Chinese solar exports are massively up because countries have had to find new energy sources.
Temporarily, all of the middle east oil infrastructure will be rebuilt because their biggest customer still has no real tangible plan to wean itself off.
There is currently a multi-billion, if not trillion, dollar industry (advertising and marketing) that is convincing everyone to behave the opposite way, i.e. maximize consumption with no regard to negative externalities. If we simply curb them, or better yet, use those same mechanisms to propagate a more rational message, yes, that that's all we need to do.
Granted fossil fuels are much more ubiquitous than CFCs and comparatively more difficult to replace, but we have prior art for changing industrial practices in the interest of improving climate conditions.
We couldn't have stopped using fossil fuels heavily until nuclear power was widespread and implemented, around the late 70s or 80s.
We could have traditioned our grids off of fossil fuels but we also depend on them for fertilizer to feed the world and for transportation which, until very recently, didn't have a viable alternative.
Nuclear was also kneecapped by FUD and astroturfing, and we didn't properly fund renewables because Republican administrations were in the pockets of big oil. Did you know GM made a fully viable electric car that people loved back in the 90s? Setback after setback, all self-inflicted, people pretending we have these insurmountable hurdles all over the place. Pathetic for an empire that prides itself as a champion of industry.
The fertilizer thing is a perfect example. We don't need to extract, refine, and burn nearly as much fuel as we do to get the fertilizer we need. People make the same empty argument about the cheap plastic shit that dominates the economy as if the world didn't exist before cheap plastic shit and couldn't exist after.
> and we didn't properly fund renewables because Republican administrations were in the pockets of big oil.
The world is a lot bigger than the US and they've all followed pretty much the same trajectory the last two decades. A slow long term investment in R&D/manufacturing techniques, followed by increased adoption when it became economically competitive. Combined with varying levels of government incentives and measured regulation, to ease transitions so it doesn't destroy the economy which we still depend on for everything else.
These major shifts always happen slowly then start exponentially growing once it's demonstrated to be practical.
I agree the US isn't the only country but I believe at that time we had the resources and clout to make green energy research happen everywhere and export our successes. We were still a global leader at the time both politically and technologically, especially where energy was concerned. And the world certainly took notice and set back the movement when the largest polluter per capita repeatedly signalled it had no interest in joining the rest of the world in a green future.
Definitely true. But you see the blame placed on the public fearing nuclear from these events. There was some fear, but also astroturfing to make sure nuclear stayed dead.
> a bunch of people spreading lies about it for 100 years or so.
To be fair to past humans the deliberate lies and misinformation didn't really start until the 1970s, the oil crisis of that decade, the coming together of the UN to recognise the issue following the geophysics papers of the 1960s that nailed the CO2 problem against oil consumption, etc.
That's the period in which Koch money started flowing to think tanks and agencies that spun hard against smaller cars, public transport, integrated rail in cities, etc. The push for bigger cars as freedom.
Arrhenius' 1896 Model of the Greenhouse Effect didn't exactly have enough bite to kick of anti-prop in 1926, the world had other pressing issues.
Also worth noting that Three Mile Island was an earlier stain on public perception that kicked in a power station slow down well before Chernobyl.
You right. 50 years or so. I was trying going back far enough to include the discovery of man-made climate change and not necessarily starting right at the plugging our ears portion of the timeline.
Regarding the nuclear FUD, I'm not backing down. We'll never know how much the fear of nuclear was grassroots and how much was turf, but we can know for sure that someone didn't want Americans to have energy independence.
Fear of nuclear weapons was backed in as part of the Cold War Mutually Assured Destruction stand off doctrine - rather hard to achieve when pushing the Atoms For Peace warm fuzzy alternative.
Didn't help that nukes didn't make good civil engineering tools or help conquer space by farting out tiny bombs.
Even Carl Sagan was pushing the nuclear should not be used primal back brain reaction by over hyping (?) nuclear winter for a disarmament argument.
From a western european perspective, I can think of only one country where misinformation appears to have been a relevant factor for climate policy. Sure, until the early 2000s or so, it was all a bit nonspecific and seemed expensive, but latest by the 2013 paris agreement with falling renewable prices everyone knew what the solutions were going to have to look like for at least electricity, heating, and intracontinental mobility. Surely there'll be other examples too, but the USA is also the only country that both sits among the top emitters and easily had the resources to address their share. I have a hard time believing that "nobody really knew for sure" is what'll go down in history books as the underlying cause for most countries' inaction
To be totally clear, I'm not trying to absolve Americans of our responsibility. Americans are remarkably stupid and basically feral (I'm obviously exaggerating but that's how it feels living here). I have had shocking conversations about climate change and domestic energy policy. About half the country, especially older people, were very eager to hear comforting lies about how the lives to which we've grown accustomed need not be adjusted in any way. Despite it now being quite undeniably knocking on our front door, a solid portion of older Americans still don't think climate change is man made and still resist any hint of a green transition. It's fucking crazy town over here.
But if trusted leadership told everyone that we were roasting the planet instead of telling them we weren't and that roasting the planet is un-American, you can bet your sweet ass we'd have some green and nuclear energy going by now.
>I can think of only one country where misinformation appears to have been a relevant factor for climate policy.
I can think of a lot of countries where it wasn't a factor, maybe because if you are a rational economic actor trying to decide to throw money and messing with what people believe you can concentrate on just the biggest country that everybody does what it says. I mean what would be the point in convincing a large part of the Danish population that climate change wasn't real? It seems like it would be inefficient.
on edit: rational in this context is just using money in a way that maximizes the result one gets while minimizing the expenditure, in case anyone was getting ready with a clever rebuttal.
Most people agree on basic values. It's really not that big a stretch to appeal to such common values, seeing as rapid global warming would cause mass relocation, suffering, adaptation costs for those who can stay put, etc.
Considering how current world powers are heavily increasing military spending as well as the heavy rightward shift in many governments, I'm no longer convinced we'll do the right thing. It feels more and more like poor countries will be left to fend for themselves, so the "developed world" can plunder the remains to prop ourselves up just a bit longer.
Bit of an easy claim without concrete examples as I gave. Would hold more water if you'd tell us which local or global culture does not have basic decency towards each other as a value / wants to cause any of the things I mentioned such as forced relocation
> if you'd tell us which local or global culture does not have basic decency towards each other as a value
Look around the thread at how people are treating each other, and then keep in mind that HN is probably like 99th percentile for civility on the Internet in this regard.
Look at what happens in threads about any other politically charged issue, for that matter. Heck, look how far the discussion will veer into politically charged off-topic matters, whenever the OP is about some meta-level "how to be convincing" "how to argue fairly" etc. point.
Not really the topic here but I actually think most people agree on most things; everyone wants to do right by them and theirs. We just focus on the areas where we differ in opinion on how to get there and have things to discuss
In the plus column, we've had a healthy rainy season in the SE US. And while storms seem to move slower than before, we're not yet overwhelmed by stall+flood events.
As for this seasons storms in WCFL, every week I see storms that barely move - often just sitting in place for an hour or more. It's a change from the historical lines that marched across the state.
The strongest El Niño ever caused a massive famine:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1877%E2%80%931878_El_Ni%C3%B1o...
To be fair, we didn't have the World Food Programme in 1877 which lets us anticipate droughts distribution and crop failures months ahead of time.
That being said, the existing energy crisis and fertilizer crisis can significantly compound the negative impacts of this El Niño even if we are able to anticipate it.
> lets us anticipate droughts distribution and crop failures months ahead of time.
If by “us” you mean big corporations, which will then buy the stuff and sell it at a premium later, then I agree.
Many farmers are subsidised specifically so that food is over-produced in most years, specifically to ensure than in bad years people don't go hungry.
Corporations may indeed be taking advantage of this, demanding prices so low that the farmers don't get the benefit of those subsidies. However:
> buy the stuff and sell it at a premium later
Is the point of a futures market. Futures let people trade a thing before they even know how supply and demand will balance, guaranteeing a price for the producer and letting them plan purchases of machinery and maintenance, with the risks (in bad years) and profit margins (in good years) going up the supply chain.
If you think that is going to happen, you can buy up some supplies and store them yourself. I have relatives with some impressive and substantial pantries because they're prepared to be snowed in for an extended period of time. Running out of food is possible the least novel problem humanity has ever encountered.
And what would you rather happen? If they don't store up a surplus then everyone will run out of food and prices will go up anyway. If there is less food because of a drought, prices are going up. If corporations start building up a stockpile then prices aren't going to go up as much as if there were no reserves.
TLDR; Yes. Good. It is a great day when there is food available at the local supermarket.
The world is bigger than your relatives.
I'm sure he was referring to already food insecure places. The rich countries will have food available, probably at elevated prices.
In places where there's actual famine people will do crazy things to get their hands on food.
If the plan isn't to stockpile food communally through a big corporation making a tidy profit for being well prepared in a disaster, and it isn't to stockpile it personally... what is the plan? There won't be any food.
There are very limited options here. Those two are, by far, the two best ones for reliably being able to access food. Someone has to build up a reserve. Literally, you should to be able to point someone out and say "this person will give me food next month, they've got a stockpile for this drought".
Ideally that someone who is very, very motivated to get it right and make it happen. Those big corporations charging extra are going to keep people fed.
> The world is bigger than your relatives.
I offer no commentary on the size of my relatives vs. the rest of the world :)
There is another option than individuals vs corporations though: The government could and should provide for it's citizens. That is what a welfare state is all about: useing the taxes it collects from its citizens for the common good.
I know, to the US centric crowd at HN that probably sounds insane, but as a Scandinavian this is what I would have expected in the past (though probably not these days).
I mean sure but if we're just going to give people the money to buy food what is the complaint about big corporations charging more?
It isn't like anyone would be unable to afford food, because a welfare state would imply a standing agreement to buy everyone food at the taxpayer's expense if required. And it is entirely reasonable for prices to go up when there is a shortage, the people who built up stockpiles in advance need to be compensated for their foresight. Someone has to be stockpiling food.
"Communally" and "through a big corporation making a tidy profit" are at odds.
It's either for and by the community or it's for and by a big corporation profiteering off the misfortune of the community. It can't be both at the same time.
The big corporations aren't "going to keep people fed", they will hoard and ration by wealth, not by need. The billionaire will get their twenty course fine dining experience, the beggar will starve. That's not keeping the people fed by any serious definition of the term.
A modern 1877 scale event would probably immediately fuel (pun intended) a furious climate change debate, even though attributing the existence of the El Niño itself to fossil fuels would not be scientifically justified... or maybe was the 1877 El Niño caused by fossil fuels (so many Wars happened in those years) ?
Nobody in planet modelling has ever suggested that the 3 phase El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) exists because of fossil fuel usage.
An extreme swing, here and there, has always been part of its nature.
The observed change is more and more extreme swings, greater amplitude, higher frequency.
in one hand i wanted to highlight that if it was today, we - as civilization - would definitely create a link between the events, based on our "feeling"
in another hand, i question if we really could rule out, since back in the days, everything that we have was coal.
Remember that this is just a piece of the complex system that is the global climate. And over it, there are more systems affected, including human ones like food production or economy. Something this extreme may cause from a severe disruption or a permanent instability in those systems, specially considering feedback loops in all of them.
I really tried to get through this. But sentences like this were confusing to me:
The author is saying the surface of the ocean (where it's easiest to measure temps, so we do that the most) is the 'footprint' or the full colum of warm water below it. Additionally, like a footprint the surface area it represents might be smaller too as warm water continues to rise.
Area vs volume.
If these are the temperatures on the surface, think of the depths. There is a whole additional dimension to multiply (integrate) across.
The added energy is far greater than you might think simply by looking at the surface.
To use an extremely inappropriate metaphor, they’re saying the warm temperatures at the surface are just the tip of the iceberg.
Yea, I will admit my imagination started to go off as I read that
We're expecting a dry and hot spring and summer this year in Australia (and our winter has been milder than average to boot). https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-07-31/nsw-el-nino-weather-e...
Great write up but bummed to not see any info about the waves. It’s been a bonkers summer!
Here is an article about the heat wave in Europe: https://www.severe-weather.eu/global-weather/excessive-heat-...
I don't know enough about climate science, but south swell usually is the result of west-to-east storms coming off of Australia. In Hawaii, this summer's south swell has been extremely consistent big swells. I imagine it's something like the west coast off South America heating up causes the balance of the southern hemisphere off Africa to counteract that.
Looking forward to Fall rain in North Texas. Summer can’t get over soon enough.
I'm currently sitting in the middle of 100mph gusting winds as every island in Hawaii is under hurricane or tropical storm warning, with at least 100k people without power right now. Hurricane season in Hawaii is usually in Sept/Oct.
Hurricane season in Hawaii is June through November. August and September have always been peak months. It's completely normal to have hurricanes at this time of year.
https://www.weather.gov/hfo/faq
https://energy.ecoflow.com/us/blog/when-is-it-hurricane-seas...
https://manoa.hawaii.edu/dps/hurricane/
I'm in Waco right now and the car said it was 107 today. If one more person says "but it's a dry heat"...
It is dry heat, if you look at it from certain point of view. I once experienced smth like 27-28°C with fog, 100% humidity. Was almost as bad as 40°C with low humidity.
And if it would be 42°C/107°F with fog and 100% humidity, lots of people would be dead already. But it’s more like saying “at least this building is not on fire right now”. Or 1km wide meteor is not crashing down. It is not, and anything near 40°C is really unpleasant, regardless of burning homes and falling meteors.
It's just wet heat.. humid here. Just back-breaking humidity. London has been terrible, 40c (104f).
You step out of the shower and within minutes you're stepping back in for another.
That's brutal for London. Sorry. Hopefully it cools down soon there.
It's humid here (50-60%) but public spaces are all ice cold indoors. I'm just here for a graduation, fly out tomorrow.
A little south from you. Car said 102. Some of that depends on where you are. Parking lot, vs say, at the lake or rural areas.
Car temperature sensors tend to be inaccurate because they're often in the Sun or some other place affected by baking a car not in a garage.
Check a thermometer in the shade. The weather data stations reported an average of 101 ℉ / 38 ℃ for Waco. It's hot, and especially feels worse with Southern subtropical humidity. OTOH, 101 in California with 0-15% humidity, it would just be a bit annoying. Higher humidity makes heat qualitatively exponentially worse until it's a sauna.
It's 96 ℉ / 36 °C @ 60% humidity every day for 5 months in hill country with no rain in sight. The El Niňo rain may not get here until November. We're right at the 100 meridian west so it's between hot semi-arid (BSH) and humid subtropical (Cfa), and most storms seem to bypass us to the north by about 20 miles. It was growing zone 8b but changed +3 ℉ to 9a in 10 years.
Meanwhile West Antarctic ice shelf barely clutching on.
No direct link, but click the "anomaly" map button just underneath the map. Hello all these similar 10+ °C anomalies that have sat around. Some colder spots too that have hung around! But yikes. https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/?dm_id=world
Sorry, just below the graph, just above the map.
I at least think of El Nino kind of running into South, building up in the Pacific. But the heat cuts across, then down, and pools in Antarctica here, is how I read it.
People really don’t appreciate yet. How really bad this situation is and will be. They’re talking about 1.76°C higher temperatures next year because of this El Niño. Those are climate change temperatures that are not supposed to be around until 2035. So it’ll give us a sneak peek into our future.
But the biggest effect and this is noted by many insurance companies now is going to be in places like India.
But this is something the world has never seen and I mean that literally so I don’t expect it to be anything but really bad and you should be ready.
It was inevitable we'd get to the point where climate change began substantially disrupting ecology and human livelihoods. Looks like we're ahead of schedule.
People dying from extreme heatwaves, weather, and famines due to climate change has been predicted for decades at this point; and this is exactly the sort of climatic setup that will enable this to happen.
> People dying from extreme heatwaves, weather, and famines due to climate change has been predicted for decades at this point; and this is exactly the sort of climatic setup that will enable this to happen.
Yeah, people have been "predicting" it, but the fact is that this is currently mostly hyperbole, driven by bad reporting and activist exaggeration.
What is happening, right now, is that winters are mostly getting warmer. Summers are getting hotter in certain places, but not at nearly the rate that cold days are decreasing -- and the evidence is weaker on a global scale. From the IPCC 6AR report, figure 11-9 shows it clearly:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/figures/chapter-11/figure...
Figure 11-2 shows it another way:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/figures/chapter-11/figure...
Even the IPCC report only gets to the "virtually certain" evidence level by combining the two claims:
> The frequency and intensity of hot extremes (including heatwaves) have increased, and those of cold extremes have decreased on the global scale since 1950 (virtually certain).
That's because, when you actually look at the data, it is abundantly clear that the increase in hot extremes are far less common than the decrease in cold extremes. Of course, when you take the ratio of the two, this looks worse, because the denominator is getting smaller.
Chapter 11 is worth reading. You will be shocked how many of the widely reported memes about extreme weather and climate are just not supported by good data:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-11/
I recommend in particular going through the figures, and looking at how many of them are model predictions (nearly all), versus plots of historical data. Setting aside the debates about model quality, etc., surely we can all agree that predictions are not evidence?
Your linked figure confirms that 2018 was cooler than things are today.
The chapter 11 temperature over view is concerning for the consequences:
... It's the harder to precisely predict potential tipping point changes that should really concern and motivate global changes to emissions.> Your linked figure confirms that 2018 was cooler than things are today.
So? what does that have to do with the question at hand? An 8 year change is irrelevant in the world of climate science. It's statistical noise in a system where cycles run for decades. Weather, not climate.
> The chapter 11 temperature over view is concerning for the consequences:
...and then you quote the part that says exactly what I explained to you, as some kind of counter-argument?
You will note that the part you quoted is, again, combining the types of extremes. They're not talking about just hot days.
I honestly do not understand this need to fatalize data. You don't have a counterargument (because what I said was factually true) so your only rebuttal is to wave your hands and say that it's all scary.
We can be honest -- the world is getting warmer -- and admit when the people predicting imminent death and destruction are exaggerating. This is good!
As the original poster you replied to, why do you think it's exaggeration to predict that people will die from increasingly strong heatwaves? This is already happening [0]. And: "For 2022, it was estimated that between 60,000 and 70,000 people in Europe died from heat (Ballester et al., 2023; Ballester et al., 2024)"
It's extremely hypocritical of you to accuse me of exaggerating when your own presentation of facts is selective and not-representative of what we are seeing globally. An El Niño will only exacerbate heatwaves in some parts of the planet over the next 24 months.
[0]: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ukhsa-report-shows-2877-e...
[1]: https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/en/observatory/topics/he...
You need to bring evidence, not press releases.
Your first link says that more people died this year, relative to predictions for this year, because of a single heat wave. This has ~nothing to do with the discussion at hand, and is a classic example of the sort of hyperbole I am talking about.
The second link says that heat events kill people in the UK. Fine. It links to a single paper claiming that:
> half of the heat-related deaths in Europe in the summer of 2022 have been attributed to anthropogenic climate change (Beck et al., 2024).
Regardless of the quality of the cited paper, this is a far cry from evidence of a trend.
> It's extremely hypocritical of you to accuse me of exaggerating when your own presentation of facts is selective and not-representative of what we are seeing globally.
You're literally exaggerating, right now. I quoted the latest IPCC report and told you factually what it says. You linked to a press release and a UK climate portal page that don't support what you're insuinating.
> This has nothing to do with the discussion at hand
This is a topic concerning El Niño. You acknowledge that the downstream consequences of El Niño effects is amplified heatwaves, presumably. Heatwaves already kill people in many continents globally. It stands to reason _strong_ heatwaves will probably raise mortality further; which is _directly related_ to my original comment.
I don't engage with people who aren't willing to be honest with what the data supports.
> I don't engage with people who aren't willing to be honest with what the data supports.
OK, whatever. But what was I dishonest about? Cite the figures. Should be pretty easy.
...oh, and by the way:
> You acknowledge that the downstream consequences of El Niño effects is amplified heatwaves, presumably.
In some places, sure. In others (i.e. the western pacific), it leads to regional cooling.
Let's at least get our facts straight.
> People dying from extreme heatwaves, weather, and famines due to climate change has been predicted for decades at this point; and this is exactly the sort of climatic setup that will enable this to happen.
The rhetoric is all well and good, but if you look at the numbers according to the WMO[0], deaths from climate-related hazards have been dropping steadily in the 50-year period from 1970 to 2019, even as atmospheric CO2 went from ~326ppm to ~410ppm and the world population more than doubled. That's not a per capita decrease; it's an absolute decrease, from over 50k deaths worldwide the 70s to fewer than 20k in the 2010s.
All of this is due to the increased ability of humans to deal with what the climate might throw at them, mostly due to cheap energy unlocked by fossil fuels during that time. Remember, there are no countries that are both rich and have a low per capita energy usage. Surplus energy allows humans to build the infrastructure that makes them more resilient to disasters.
If I had to wager, more people will suffer and die in the coming decades from efforts to combat climate change (i.e. hamstring energy production and usage) than from climate change itself. You can already see this in the anti-air conditioning sentiment in parts of Europe.
[0]: https://library.wmo.int/idurl/4/57564
Look, I think you made some good points, but at the same time, humans have become better at handling the climate because we’ve been able to predict it and have found solutions to certain known issues. What happens when it gets less predictable, like when certain regions get much less water for an extended period, is very much unknown.
Your last claim makes no sense. Is there actually a widespread political effort to ban air conditioning or make it hard to get in Europe? That certainly isn’t the case in the US. And yet hot summers are still killer in cities which aren’t accustomed to them: that’s climate change doing the killing.
Solar is just about the most abundant source of energy on the planet, and easily decentralized. Plugin solar is becoming increasingly popular and cheap, for example.
I think energy production would be much more abundant and directly in control of the people if governments stopped subsidizing energy sources that need massive amounts of resources just to keep running. Why not give solar an advantage when every watt installed can just… work by itself for the next three decades? Every watt of a gas plant needs you to figure out who to buy gas from forever.
Regarding air conditioning in Europe, I suspect that there are other interests at play given that there has been zero pushback against air conditioning in cars.
Air conditioning in buildings is likely viewed as a threat to gas providers as most modern cooling devices also have a heating mode that competes directly with gas heating.
> Air conditioning in buildings is likely viewed as a threat to gas providers as most modern cooling devices also have a heating mode that competes directly with gas heating.
Not sure it makes sense, most of those countries are already phasing out fuel/gas boilers.
IMO it's just cultural shift is slow to adjust (in those countries, a few decades ago AC would have been a wasteful luxury, summer temperature would be well below 30 except for a few days).
At least here in the UK, recent revisions to the default planning rules around heat pumps (“Permitted Development” legislation) removed the restriction that an install be “used solely for heating purposes” and revised this to “not be used solely for the purpose of cooling”.
The Boiler Upgrade Scheme grant also permits cooling - it’s based on the heating credentials of a unit only.
So in Britain at least, installing cooling systems in private residences seems to be getting easier.
Regarding air conditioning in Europe, the issue is terminally onlime assholes mostly not Europeans trying to start culture war around them.
And I used that offensive word intentionally, because it fits perfectly.
Reality is much of Europe hasn’t needed air con until recently
mMy phone tells me that the temperature this week has been 15°C above the long term average for this time of year.
Don’t really need air con when the peak temperature in the past has been 20–25°C
> I think energy production would be much more abundant and directly in control of the people if governments stopped...
Lots of people pat themselves on the back for (correctly) believing that climate change is real. Why is it so hard for people to also believe that regulatory capture and oligarchy are real, and directly responsible for the lack of action against climate change?
Think of all the for-profit power utility companies in the US. Why are they for-profit? For that matter, why are ISPs for-profit and not run as non-profits with heavy government assistance? Answer, basically: Because the existing people that make lots of money off them have been lobbying heavily to make it so. Similarly, it is no coincidence the current leadership in the US is actively against renewable energy.
A lot of the existing wealth, especially in North America and Europe was built on top of fossil fuels directly or indirectly (cars, power plants, industries, maintaining diplomatic relations with oil-rich nations). That dependence is hard to unwind and is going to take 50 years or more unless the US electorate can start electing people that believe in climate change. And for this reason, actually addressing climate change is going to come from unintuitive social actions, like making smaller housing more fashionable, moving to urban areas, possibly cracking down heavily on crime in those areas, and financially rewarding the use of public transport and bikes.
I'm pretty sure that GP agrees with you on this point? You just cut off the rest of their quote where they point that out.
Do they?
Unless stuff like "Why not give solar an advantage..." is a rhetorical question with the answer of "Because lots of current billionaires would make less money", I don't think they are pointing out the same stuff I said.
all airconditioning brands had massive uptick in sales in Europe; Spain and other southern countries over 100%. what anti air conditioning sentiment?
Online right is trying to create culture war around them, so that they can blame the victims here.
All the while they vote and cheer for political parties that make warming worst.
The two are racing each other. So far, human adaptation is winning. But climate change is just getting started. The change that happened over the last 50 years is tiny compare to what will happen over the next 50. It may well start winning that race.
Ministry for the Future ch. 1 scenario?
https://www.scribd.com/document/979965270/Robinson-Kim-Stanl...
The future will be much worse. Some effects take years or decades to manifest and we wont see them during a relatively short event like El Niño.
Eg: the severe disruption of the jet stream or the collapse of the AMOC.
Plus all the long term feedbacks like methane etc.
Death is a feature and not a bug of the system, in my mind atleast. I come from a pretty dysfunctional/chaotic family which sometimes makes me think larger systems have this unpredictability and lack of control too. Do I spend my time studying the dysfunction? Beyond a point its exhausting. Ask anyone who comes from a trauma organized system. For us it is more a relief that there is an exit door out of such traps we are born into. Maybe the buddhist philosophy is a healthier way to think about it - over attachment to anything that is ever changing is the path to suffering.
You don’t get to be unattached to the lives of others; only your own. What ugly thinking to cloth in Buddhism!
Attachment being the cause of suffering really is core to Buddhism. It's not for everybody though.
What is your point? What system are you taking about? Also I don't want to judge but I hope you don't use your past trauma as an excuse for indifference. You can be indifferent but just say so. The fact that you have trauma doesn't give you a leg to stand on. There are plenty of people with trauma and have come out of it. It just sounds rather angsty.
All we needed to do was stop burning fossil fuels we really are fucking dense.
Would have been doable if we could have switched to nuclear, but no.
It would've helped a ton but it's not like electricity generation is the only source of emissions. You can't run a car or a plane on nuclear power. You can technically run a cargo ship on nuclear power but that's also not gonna happen. Yet transport is the second largest source of emissions.
Batteries have only recently-ish gotten energy dense and cheap enough for electric cars to be competitive, completely different solutions are needed for long distance shipping by sea or air.
It's the same situation across many other sectors like agriculture, construction and waste management. Lots of things causing emissions that's not electricity generation.
If only China and US could get their shit together....
China is the only country that is seriously doing anything about anything. They've single handedly built more renewable energy capacity than every other country combined, they've pulled millions of diesel and gasoline cars off roads, reforested one of the world's biggest deserts, this year they've finally reduced coal usage, and next year the long awaited Tokamak is set to fire for the first time.
The US is busy sending warships across the planet to blow up oil refineries which will be rebuilt. It's not bad enough we are busy grinding sand, but we are actively making things worse.
And with that they built the manufacturing engine that is supplying the rest of the world with renewable tech
You can't really have this both ways. Closing Hormuz and blowing up Iranian export facilities has been massively decarbonizing. Chinese solar exports are massively up because countries have had to find new energy sources.
Oil is a small proportion of carbon emissions. Coal is where it's at, and Iran has very little to do with that.
Chinese solar was a big deal globally long before Trump's Iran blunder
To be fair, closing the straight of hormuz has probably put a dent in carbon emissions.
Temporarily, all of the middle east oil infrastructure will be rebuilt because their biggest customer still has no real tangible plan to wean itself off.
Is US the biggest customer?
https://apnews.com/article/wind-solar-energy-china-climate-c...
Republicans are the bad guys right now.
Per capita CO2 emissions in the US are down about 36% from their 1973 peak (https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions).
Ah yes it could have been so easy: All we needed to do was convince everyone in the world to behave a certain way.
There is currently a multi-billion, if not trillion, dollar industry (advertising and marketing) that is convincing everyone to behave the opposite way, i.e. maximize consumption with no regard to negative externalities. If we simply curb them, or better yet, use those same mechanisms to propagate a more rational message, yes, that that's all we need to do.
Exactly, kinda like what we did with CFCs!
Granted fossil fuels are much more ubiquitous than CFCs and comparatively more difficult to replace, but we have prior art for changing industrial practices in the interest of improving climate conditions.
It really was very achievable, the main reason we didn't was we had a bunch of people spreading lies about it for 100 years or so.
We couldn't have stopped using fossil fuels heavily until nuclear power was widespread and implemented, around the late 70s or 80s.
We could have traditioned our grids off of fossil fuels but we also depend on them for fertilizer to feed the world and for transportation which, until very recently, didn't have a viable alternative.
Nuclear was also kneecapped by FUD and astroturfing, and we didn't properly fund renewables because Republican administrations were in the pockets of big oil. Did you know GM made a fully viable electric car that people loved back in the 90s? Setback after setback, all self-inflicted, people pretending we have these insurmountable hurdles all over the place. Pathetic for an empire that prides itself as a champion of industry.
The fertilizer thing is a perfect example. We don't need to extract, refine, and burn nearly as much fuel as we do to get the fertilizer we need. People make the same empty argument about the cheap plastic shit that dominates the economy as if the world didn't exist before cheap plastic shit and couldn't exist after.
> and we didn't properly fund renewables because Republican administrations were in the pockets of big oil.
The world is a lot bigger than the US and they've all followed pretty much the same trajectory the last two decades. A slow long term investment in R&D/manufacturing techniques, followed by increased adoption when it became economically competitive. Combined with varying levels of government incentives and measured regulation, to ease transitions so it doesn't destroy the economy which we still depend on for everything else.
These major shifts always happen slowly then start exponentially growing once it's demonstrated to be practical.
I agree the US isn't the only country but I believe at that time we had the resources and clout to make green energy research happen everywhere and export our successes. We were still a global leader at the time both politically and technologically, especially where energy was concerned. And the world certainly took notice and set back the movement when the largest polluter per capita repeatedly signalled it had no interest in joining the rest of the world in a green future.
> Did you know GM made a fully viable electric car that people loved back in the 90s?
105m range on nimh which rapidly degrades isn't a fully viable car and a maximum of 1000 people "loved" it considering that's all they made.
GM is in business to make money. They didn't cancel a car that was a viable product.
To be fair, Chernobyl didn't exactly help the cause.
Definitely true. But you see the blame placed on the public fearing nuclear from these events. There was some fear, but also astroturfing to make sure nuclear stayed dead.
> a bunch of people spreading lies about it for 100 years or so.
To be fair to past humans the deliberate lies and misinformation didn't really start until the 1970s, the oil crisis of that decade, the coming together of the UN to recognise the issue following the geophysics papers of the 1960s that nailed the CO2 problem against oil consumption, etc.
That's the period in which Koch money started flowing to think tanks and agencies that spun hard against smaller cars, public transport, integrated rail in cities, etc. The push for bigger cars as freedom.
Arrhenius' 1896 Model of the Greenhouse Effect didn't exactly have enough bite to kick of anti-prop in 1926, the world had other pressing issues.
Also worth noting that Three Mile Island was an earlier stain on public perception that kicked in a power station slow down well before Chernobyl.
You right. 50 years or so. I was trying going back far enough to include the discovery of man-made climate change and not necessarily starting right at the plugging our ears portion of the timeline.
Regarding the nuclear FUD, I'm not backing down. We'll never know how much the fear of nuclear was grassroots and how much was turf, but we can know for sure that someone didn't want Americans to have energy independence.
Fear of nuclear weapons was backed in as part of the Cold War Mutually Assured Destruction stand off doctrine - rather hard to achieve when pushing the Atoms For Peace warm fuzzy alternative.
Didn't help that nukes didn't make good civil engineering tools or help conquer space by farting out tiny bombs.
Even Carl Sagan was pushing the nuclear should not be used primal back brain reaction by over hyping (?) nuclear winter for a disarmament argument.
From a western european perspective, I can think of only one country where misinformation appears to have been a relevant factor for climate policy. Sure, until the early 2000s or so, it was all a bit nonspecific and seemed expensive, but latest by the 2013 paris agreement with falling renewable prices everyone knew what the solutions were going to have to look like for at least electricity, heating, and intracontinental mobility. Surely there'll be other examples too, but the USA is also the only country that both sits among the top emitters and easily had the resources to address their share. I have a hard time believing that "nobody really knew for sure" is what'll go down in history books as the underlying cause for most countries' inaction
To be totally clear, I'm not trying to absolve Americans of our responsibility. Americans are remarkably stupid and basically feral (I'm obviously exaggerating but that's how it feels living here). I have had shocking conversations about climate change and domestic energy policy. About half the country, especially older people, were very eager to hear comforting lies about how the lives to which we've grown accustomed need not be adjusted in any way. Despite it now being quite undeniably knocking on our front door, a solid portion of older Americans still don't think climate change is man made and still resist any hint of a green transition. It's fucking crazy town over here.
But if trusted leadership told everyone that we were roasting the planet instead of telling them we weren't and that roasting the planet is un-American, you can bet your sweet ass we'd have some green and nuclear energy going by now.
>I can think of only one country where misinformation appears to have been a relevant factor for climate policy.
I can think of a lot of countries where it wasn't a factor, maybe because if you are a rational economic actor trying to decide to throw money and messing with what people believe you can concentrate on just the biggest country that everybody does what it says. I mean what would be the point in convincing a large part of the Danish population that climate change wasn't real? It seems like it would be inefficient.
on edit: rational in this context is just using money in a way that maximizes the result one gets while minimizing the expenditure, in case anyone was getting ready with a clever rebuttal.
Most people agree on basic values. It's really not that big a stretch to appeal to such common values, seeing as rapid global warming would cause mass relocation, suffering, adaptation costs for those who can stay put, etc.
Considering how current world powers are heavily increasing military spending as well as the heavy rightward shift in many governments, I'm no longer convinced we'll do the right thing. It feels more and more like poor countries will be left to fend for themselves, so the "developed world" can plunder the remains to prop ourselves up just a bit longer.
> Most people agree on basic values
This isn't even true at a local level, let alone at the global scale.
Bit of an easy claim without concrete examples as I gave. Would hold more water if you'd tell us which local or global culture does not have basic decency towards each other as a value / wants to cause any of the things I mentioned such as forced relocation
> if you'd tell us which local or global culture does not have basic decency towards each other as a value
Look around the thread at how people are treating each other, and then keep in mind that HN is probably like 99th percentile for civility on the Internet in this regard.
Look at what happens in threads about any other politically charged issue, for that matter. Heck, look how far the discussion will veer into politically charged off-topic matters, whenever the OP is about some meta-level "how to be convincing" "how to argue fairly" etc. point.
Yeah they do, on the really basic stuff, on a global level.
Not really the topic here but I actually think most people agree on most things; everyone wants to do right by them and theirs. We just focus on the areas where we differ in opinion on how to get there and have things to discuss
individual people don't matter, they're peanuts. otoh the single biggest consumer of fossil fuels is the US DOD. and why is that, really?
Is this actually true? That sounds suspicious. I’d love to see that data.
In the plus column, we've had a healthy rainy season in the SE US. And while storms seem to move slower than before, we're not yet overwhelmed by stall+flood events.
Have we? Most all of South Carolina is in a drought. We experienced an exceptionally dry Spring and have had good but not sufficient rains all summer.
Yeah and the west is so extremely dry.
Has seemed pretty normal here in central Florida as far as rain goes.
> Has seemed pretty normal here in central Florida as far as rain goes.
We're defiantly in the rainy side of the scale. https://climatecenter.fsu.edu/products-services/data/statewi...
As for this seasons storms in WCFL, every week I see storms that barely move - often just sitting in place for an hour or more. It's a change from the historical lines that marched across the state.
Come to Japan and say it