Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Antarctic CO2 Hit 400 PPM for First Time in 4M Years

scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 315 posts

Re: Antarctic CO2 Hit 400 PPM for First Time in 4M Years

#91

Post by fabled_giraffe »

MikeHolman wrote: post #72

I've been having a bit of an existential crisis about this recently. Is sustainability even possible anymore? We are obviously living beyond the capacity of the earth to cope right now. But is it even possible to sustain this many people (at current standards of living with foreseeable technology)?

I believe in global warming, but I also think a higher or lower temperature Earth with a greater level of CO2 just means that different organisms will thrive. We think that we have damaged the Earth, but the Earth is much, much older than us, and we've barely made a dent if you consider the full lifetime of everything that ever will be. Now- if we had started a global thermonuclear war and eradicated all life on Earth, I wouldn't be saying that, but all we have done is to change the temperature and the atmosphere a little, which has serious consequences for the way things currently are, but in the end it will just mean different organisms take over and what grows where will change.

If anything, the thing we need to be concerned about is being ready for changes, which will happen. We might need to grow different sorts of foods, focus on better insulation for our homes or move underground or underwater. We may need new laws to avoid wasting resources. But, there is no reason to be depressed about it. Those things will happen with time.

Re: Antarctic CO2 Hit 400 PPM for First Time in 4M Years

#92

Post by erichocean »

willholloway wrote: post #55
lisper wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Am I reading the visualization right that CO2 practically disappears every summer? No. The concentration does drop seasonally, but not even close to zero. See: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ Click on the "full record" tab and note that the Y axis starts at 320 (compared to the preindustrial level of 270). The seasonal drop is about 5PPM, and we're at about 400 now, roughly 50% over pre-industrial levels.…

We can fix this, we can take the carbon out of the atmosphere [1]. There is reason for optimism. We. Are. Not. Doomed. The optimum level of carbon is probably slightly above pre-industrial levels. We definitely need to get back below 350ppm to keep human civilization... civilized. 400ppm+ is a trajectory to anarchy. The chimpanzee raiding impulse is alive and well in our DNA, a survival adaptation for stagnation and…

> That said if we cracked fusion, we would have all the energy we would need to desalinate seawater and sequester carbon.

I've not heard this before. How does desalinating seawater help with sequestering carbon?

Re: Antarctic CO2 Hit 400 PPM for First Time in 4M Years

#93

Post by ajnin »

tgb wrote: post #20
jakeogh wrote: post #10

Nice visualization from NASA: https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000/a011700/a011719/11719-...

Beautiful. I'd love to have seen it in an equal-area projection, though. The high concentrations are disproportionately in the high latitudes where area is stretched, so I think the yearly variation would look a little less ominous that way. Anyway, I hope one day we can get a new Sim Earth with this style of simulation and presentation.

Here's another visualization by Oregon State University, similar to the video but with a navigable equal-area map :

http://co2.digitalcartography.org/

Re: Antarctic CO2 Hit 400 PPM for First Time in 4M Years

#94

Post by castratikron »

fabled_giraffe wrote: post #91
MikeHolman wrote: post #72

I've been having a bit of an existential crisis about this recently. Is sustainability even possible anymore? We are obviously living beyond the capacity of the earth to cope right now. But is it even possible to sustain this many people (at current standards of living with foreseeable technology)?

I believe in global warming, but I also think a higher or lower temperature Earth with a greater level of CO2 just means that different organisms will thrive. We think that we have damaged the Earth, but the Earth is much, much older than us, and we've barely made a dent if you consider the full lifetime of everything that ever will be. Now- if we had started a global thermonuclear war and eradicated all life on Eart…

But will we be able to eat the different organisms that will thrive in this environment? What happens when today's staple crops no longer produce the yields we need to sustain our civilization?

Re: Antarctic CO2 Hit 400 PPM for First Time in 4M Years

#95

Post by wavefunction »

fabled_giraffe wrote: post #91
MikeHolman wrote: post #72

I've been having a bit of an existential crisis about this recently. Is sustainability even possible anymore? We are obviously living beyond the capacity of the earth to cope right now. But is it even possible to sustain this many people (at current standards of living with foreseeable technology)?

I believe in global warming, but I also think a higher or lower temperature Earth with a greater level of CO2 just means that different organisms will thrive. We think that we have damaged the Earth, but the Earth is much, much older than us, and we've barely made a dent if you consider the full lifetime of everything that ever will be. Now- if we had started a global thermonuclear war and eradicated all life on Eart…

My response to you is "what right do we have to usher in these changes?"

You might argue the "might makes right" perspective that anything within our capability is acceptable and appropriate but I don't agree with that sentiment. I feel that we, as sentient/semi-sapient beings, must be as custodians for this world and all the life within it.

We are actually the least among all, until we begin to serve the rest of this planet that has seen us to this point.

Re: Antarctic CO2 Hit 400 PPM for First Time in 4M Years

#96

Post by quasse »

Steko wrote: post #87
zmmmmm wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might benefit from reading this book: https://www.withouthotair.com/ Obviously there's no simple naive answer to your question, but essentially to a first approximation the answer is yes, it's possible. The changes we need to implement are pretty dramatic and some particular things don't look very viable (say, regular people making frequent international flights), but aside from those it's entirely doable and rea…

{not a quote from link but the conversation reminded me of this} I would not rule out the chance to preserve a nucleus of human specimens. It would be quite easy... at the bottom of ah...some of our deeper mineshafts. Radioactivity would never penetrate a mine some thousands of feet deep, and in a matter of weeks, sufficient improvements in drilling space could easily be provided... It would not be difficult, Nuclear…

This sounds essentially like the plot of the Book of Ember series if anyone (or their kids) is into post-apocalyptic cave living fiction.

Re: Antarctic CO2 Hit 400 PPM for First Time in 4M Years

#97

Post by m_mueller »

throwaway5752 wrote: post #79
m_mueller wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way I see it, sooner or later it will come down to atmospheric engineering (i.e. managing reflective airborne molecules, like an artificial volcanic winter). The question will be wether we have this technology sorted out until the situation becomes desperate and whether the world will be politically stable enough for an entity to take responsibility over this - it's going to be like a sword of damocles over every…

How does that address ocean acidification?

It doesn't. It won't be pretty, it's basically fighting for survival of the human species at that point.

Re: Antarctic CO2 Hit 400 PPM for First Time in 4M Years

#98

Post by eru »

wavefunction wrote: post #95
fabled_giraffe wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe in global warming, but I also think a higher or lower temperature Earth with a greater level of CO2 just means that different organisms will thrive. We think that we have damaged the Earth, but the Earth is much, much older than us, and we've barely made a dent if you consider the full lifetime of everything that ever will be. Now- if we had started a global thermonuclear war and eradicated all life on Eart…

My response to you is "what right do we have to usher in these changes?" You might argue the "might makes right" perspective that anything within our capability is acceptable and appropriate but I don't agree with that sentiment. I feel that we, as sentient/semi-sapient beings, must be as custodians for this world and all the life within it. We are actually the least among all, until we begin to serve the rest of thi…

It's very difficult to derive 'ought' from 'is'.

Re: Antarctic CO2 Hit 400 PPM for First Time in 4M Years

#99

Post by fabled_giraffe »

castratikron wrote: post #94
fabled_giraffe wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe in global warming, but I also think a higher or lower temperature Earth with a greater level of CO2 just means that different organisms will thrive. We think that we have damaged the Earth, but the Earth is much, much older than us, and we've barely made a dent if you consider the full lifetime of everything that ever will be. Now- if we had started a global thermonuclear war and eradicated all life on Eart…

But will we be able to eat the different organisms that will thrive in this environment? What happens when today's staple crops no longer produce the yields we need to sustain our civilization?

During the little ice age, people ate things that grew in colder climates, like potatoes. We will find a way to survive, and we have more technology now to help than we did then.

Re: Antarctic CO2 Hit 400 PPM for First Time in 4M Years

#100

Post by DougWebb »

wavefunction wrote: post #95
fabled_giraffe wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe in global warming, but I also think a higher or lower temperature Earth with a greater level of CO2 just means that different organisms will thrive. We think that we have damaged the Earth, but the Earth is much, much older than us, and we've barely made a dent if you consider the full lifetime of everything that ever will be. Now- if we had started a global thermonuclear war and eradicated all life on Eart…

My response to you is "what right do we have to usher in these changes?" You might argue the "might makes right" perspective that anything within our capability is acceptable and appropriate but I don't agree with that sentiment. I feel that we, as sentient/semi-sapient beings, must be as custodians for this world and all the life within it. We are actually the least among all, until we begin to serve the rest of thi…

The changes are already ushered in. Our responsibility now is to manage the consequences as well as we can.
Post reply on HN