Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | alexk307's commentslogin

Which is a good thing because solar + batteries is literally the easiest way to make profit currently, and will get more profitable year over year.

This is just incorrect. The politics in the US say one thing but the market is going in the other direction. 2026 additions to the US grid will be almost entirely renewables - 6.3 GW of natural gas / 86 GW total means ~93% of new additions to grid capacity are renewable [1]. A quarter of the electricity in the US is now generated by renewables [2] and growing rapidly. The states with the largest amount of renewable electricity generation are wildly different politically, but all agree that renewables make the most financial sense [3].

[1] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=67205 [2] https://www.semafor.com/article/03/03/2026/us-renewables-hit... [3] https://www.integrityenergy.com/blog/the-top-10-states-pavin...


There isn't enough fossil fuels in the ground for us to burn to cause a 20F+ increase in annual summer temperatures globally...


Their argument is not predicated on a 20F+ temp rise globally; their argument is about regions.


Most of the increase in local temperatures are overnight lows in the Winter. I'm not sure there's any peer-reviewed mechanism to suggest that daytime Summer highs will increase 20F+ due to greenhouse gases in any parts of the world.


So your argument that this statement by them: "If you live in a region that usually was 90F in the summer and is now >110F regularly, that’s going to cause problem." is hyperbole, then? Okay, going with that, what temperature range would you find credible, as to describe a region that is seeing wilder swings in summer highs?


https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/summer-temperature-anomal...

Somewhere on the order of 1-2C if you start from the 1850s.


I'm not talking about global, look at individual countries:

- Andora (5C/9F)

- Montenegro (5C/9F)

- Japan (4C/7F)

- Italy (4C/7F)

- Spain (3C/5.4F)

Even with current rates I think we'll easily hit a 20F increase in several regions.


Pretty sure global warming is referencing the global affects, not regional ones. You can't make a global argument based on local temperature increases just like you can't make an argument that global warming is causing cooler summers based on the numerous regions that have experienced cooling in the same reference period. Also these are average temperatures increases, not summer high temperature increases.


Globally, the weather of regions is changing.


Your own source affirms the other person's point, not yours; switch to the table view and sort by absolute change.


It really doesn't - my source shows average summer temperatures (Th - Tl / 2). This does not say that those regions are experiencing high temperatures that are that much warmer, but that on average (including overnight lows) they are warmer.


How does this disprove the other person's point? Is there a hair being split in a way that is material to the spirit of the argument?


In the reference period 1999->2020, the instruments used by NHANES to track this data changed at least 3 times, they don't account for other changes to the general population that increase bicarbonate levels in serum (i.e. Number of obese Americans rose by ~40% in the reference period [1]). I'm not entirely convinced that using a proxy for C02 levels that can be confounded by a multitude of other health conditions that are common in the American population is a good way of going about this.

[1] https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-statisti...


> As climate breakdown accelerates, rainfall patterns are changing fast, and water will increasingly become less available at certain times of year. As Sir David King, a former UK chief scientific adviser who chairs the Climate Crisis Advisory Group, says: “Drought in England is no longer a warning. It is a clear signal that climate collapse is unravelling our water, food and natural systems right now.

Rainfall over all of the UK has been increasing since 1840 accord to the Met Office [1]. How is a drought a clear signal of collapse if they've been happening since before the industrial revolution? [2]

[1] https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/...

[2] https://iahs.info/uploads/dms/13708.88-483-489-81-308-Cole-F...


But that's not what the paper says. It says Clear Air Turbulence (CAT) has gotten worse, not all types of turbulence. In this case, the flight flew through a convective storm.

Even so, the paper says there's been a 0.2-0.3% change in CAT:

> The largest increases in both absolute and relative MOG CAT were found over the North Atlantic and continental United States, with statistically significant absolute increases of 0.3% (26 hr) and 0.22% (19 hr), respectively, over the total reanalysis period.


That paper has nothing to do with the incident in question. You're referencing a BBC article that references a paper stating that Clear Air Turbulence is getting worse [1]

> Turbulence is unpleasant to fly through in an aircraft. Strong turbulence can even injure air passengers and flight attendants. An invisible form called clear-air turbulence

But in the incident in question, the plane flew directly through a convective storm.

[1] https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2023GL10...


Ah fair call out about it being a convective storm, but those have even more evidence of worsening relative to climate change.


Not according to the IPCC:

> Climate models consistently project environmental changes that would support an increase in the frequency and intensity of severe thunderstorms that combine tornadoes, hail, and winds (high confidence), but there is low confidence in the details of the projected increase.

The models project it, but there is currently low confidence in the increase.



Great! Now I'll just wait 10 years and pay double the price to get this in the US...



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: