[HN Gopher] We have 48% chance of breaching 1.5degC target by 20...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       We have 48% chance of breaching 1.5degC target by 2026, says Met
       Office
        
       Author : kitkat_new
       Score  : 28 points
       Date   : 2022-05-10 19:46 UTC (3 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.newscientist.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.newscientist.com)
        
       | penneyd wrote:
       | I think we all know it's really 100%
        
         | nickff wrote:
         | Are you offering a bet? I'll take infinity-to-one odds!
         | 
         | We should applaud any individual or organization offering
         | probabilistic predictions, as the future is contingent.
        
         | sharken wrote:
         | Absolutely, Don't Look Up and all will be well.
         | 
         | What is required is COVID level energy savings times two or
         | three.
         | 
         | But as long as we can't see the damage being done, there won't
         | be sufficient support to change things in a meaningful way.
         | 
         | That is human nature unfortunately.
        
           | throwaway6532 wrote:
           | My take on "Don't Look Up" was that it's actually a
           | documentary, but it had to be made ahead of time because we
           | won't be around to make it or see it after the fact. Don't
           | forget to like and subscribe.
        
           | fallingfrog wrote:
           | It is, partly, we do tend to engage in short term thinking-
           | but it's also perverse incentives.
        
           | fhaller wrote:
           | > What is required is COVID level energy savings times two or
           | three.
           | 
           | I wonder if we already saw some effects in Europe in
           | 2021/2022. 2021 was a normal rain year for the first time in
           | many years. The spring in 2022 is the first normal spring in
           | many years: Temperatures rise gradually, as opposed to going
           | from 0 to 25 degrees in a couple of days.
           | 
           | I know that the sample is too small, but the difference is
           | striking.
        
           | PaulHoule wrote:
           | Nah, you see "free speech" today is the right to disable the
           | fire alarm in a burning theater, block the exits, commandeer
           | the sound system to tell people to stay in their seats, ...
        
             | penneyd wrote:
             | We must protect the theater owner's potential popcorn
             | profits at all costs.
        
             | gruez wrote:
             | I'm not seeing the analogy here. What are the policies that
             | "free speech" advocate want that are equivalent to "disable
             | the fire alarm in a burning theater, block the exits,
             | commandeer the sound system to tell people to stay in their
             | seats"?
        
               | PaulHoule wrote:
               | Global warming denial.
        
               | gruez wrote:
               | That doesn't answer the question. I want the specific
               | policies and justification for why they fit those
               | examples.
        
         | HL33tibCe7 wrote:
         | Based on what? I think I'll stick to what the Met Office says
         | rather than what someone on HN "knows". It's alarming enough
         | without embellishing it further.
         | 
         | I see this often when climate change is discussed. People seem
         | to casually throw science under the bus when it suits them. For
         | example, people boldly proclaiming that X recent weather event
         | was caused by climate change, as if it was a 100% proven fact.
         | Yes, it may well have been, because climate change causes
         | extreme weather. But it's impossible to tell that any
         | particular event was caused by climate change; extreme events
         | happened in the past plenty too. It's unscientific and
         | unhelpful, and is ultimately driven by bias.
        
           | throwaway6532 wrote:
           | >I see this often when climate change is discussed. People
           | seem to casually throw science under the bus when it suits
           | them.
           | 
           | I think it's because people see humanity casually throwing
           | the planet under the bus when it suits them despite what the
           | science says. Eventually you just kind of see the writing on
           | the wall (or _feel_ like you do).
        
             | gruez wrote:
             | >Eventually you just kind of see the writing on the wall
             | (or _feel_ like you do).
             | 
             | I don't get it. You "see the writing on the wall" and
             | then... throw science under the bus yourself as well?
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-05-10 23:02 UTC)