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

121–130 of 315 posts

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

#121

Post by ageofwant »

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…

This is very human-centric point of view. How many species will be lost forever as a direct cause of this event ? Sure, it happens all the time, but typically over a much longer period meaning other species can evolve to fill the gaps. There is no time for evolution to work over the 200 years this last change happened.

Another thing to consider is that the less diversity exists the harder it is for life to continue.

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

#122

Post by rosser »

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?

Get ready to enjoy eating things made from jellyfish. Like, a lot of them.

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

#123

Post by m_mueller »

eru wrote: post #103
fratlas wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. I had an argument with a friend because I said having more than 3 kids is selfish, and conversely, having fewer kids (or adopting) is selfless and should be praised. They retorted saying it should be part of an individual's freedom to have as many as they wish. I think after a few more generations we may be looking at a world wide child policy (similar to China).

Why? Global population is already forecast to peak pretty soon.

The sooner the better. According to the most realistic climate models, the point of no return for ~2 degree global average warming is already over. We don't have a good idea at what point truly catastrophic damage is going to occur (by which I mainly mean something like a Siberian clathrate gun that could hypothetically drastically warm the climate within a human lifetime). Continuing the current path of CO2 increase, every 10 years increases the risk for a runaway warming process. What's worse is that our models aren't good enough to say with certainty how high this risk is (or that it doesn't exist). So really, the time we live in now is what counts and every little bit we do, helps.

If you want some scary reading material, start here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrupt_climate_change

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian–Triassic_extinction_ev...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis (Please note: This article seems to change its message regularly. it's best to go for the source material instead).

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

#124

Post by eloff »

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…

That's my way of thinking about it too. At any rate getting nearly 200 independent nation states to agree on anything when they all individually benefit by flouting the rules - that's madness. We'll burn oil and coal and gas until it doesn't make economic sense. I very much doubt politics will change the outcome. Technology will hopefully save us from ourselves on that front.

A bigger problem is positive feedback loops. Melting ice means more dark water to absorb sunlight, and more melting. Melting permafrost releases CO2 and Methane and causes more warming. And somewhere around ~5 degrees warming the frozen methane on the ocean floor will bubble up and cause the mother of all feedback cycles. We'd be in for about 10 degrees warming and a mass extinction that would wipe out 90% or more of all species on Earth. From what I've seen of global warming predictions we won't get there - but I'm mentioning this because at some point warming temperatures doesn't just mean major changes and flooding our cities - at some point it means a terrible calamity like the Earth has only occasionally seen.

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

#126

Post by [deleted] »

nsxwolf wrote: post #120
fratlas wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. I had an argument with a friend because I said having more than 3 kids is selfish, and conversely, having fewer kids (or adopting) is selfless and should be praised. They retorted saying it should be part of an individual's freedom to have as many as they wish. I think after a few more generations we may be looking at a world wide child policy (similar to China).

Oh come off it hardly anyone has kids anymore. US population growth is very slow and due purely to immigration. Populations in many countries are in free fall. China's one child policy has created a demographic disaster with insufficient girls born. This Paul Erlich stuff is so 1970s.

[deleted]

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

#128

Post by maratd »

ageofwant wrote: post #121
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…

This is very human-centric point of view. How many species will be lost forever as a direct cause of this event ? Sure, it happens all the time, but typically over a much longer period meaning other species can evolve to fill the gaps. There is no time for evolution to work over the 200 years this last change happened. Another thing to consider is that the less diversity exists the harder it is for life to continue.

> This is very human-centric point of view. How many species will be lost forever as a direct cause of this event ?

Actually, it's your view that's human-centric. Species? Diversity? These are human concepts and mores.

> There is no time for evolution to work over the 200 years this last change happened.

Evolution doesn't "work". It's merely the process of natural and sexual selection. The flora and fauna are constantly being sculpted by the environment, even a rapidly changing one. And there is no evidence to suggest similarly rapid shifts haven't occurred in the past. In fact, there is evidence that they did and life went on.

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

#129

Post by m_mueller »

yongjik wrote: post #70
tim333 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, our ancestors were around. It seems it was about 2C hotter from 10 to 4m years ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.svg

We don't know what happened to our ancestors. Anything from environmental disasters to epidemics could have wiped out 95% of our ancestors at some time, and the only trace of that would be slightly lower fossil counts. In other words, "our ancestors survived" isn't really reassuring. There's a really wide gap between "Everybody's lives become seriously harder" and "Humanity goes extinct". After all, even WW2 only man…

Arguing about the past about whether we can survive in the future is a logical fallacy because we all experience the Anthropic principle [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

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

#130

Post by ChuckMcM »

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)?

   > But is it even possible to sustain this many people (at
   > current standards of living with foreseeable technology)?
Absolutely, there is a tremendous amount of waste which is not recaptured due to economic rather than technological reasons. Further there are technologies (like nuclear power and breeder reactors) which can provide energy forever (for all practical purposes). And ultimately the survival of humans can be reduced to simply to energy, energy to grow food, energy to process wastes, and energy to communicate and interact. Modern nuclear submarines stay submerged under the ocean for 6 months, only coming up for consumables such as food. A companion "farm" sub (not that such a thing currently exists, but is certainly possible given the extent of aquaculture today) could provide the necessary consumable. Letting the submarine pair exist under the ocean until its nuclear fuel ran out. Add a third submarine that has a breeder reactor and a fuel reprocessing pipeline and you've got a permanent colony.

It still requires Newport News to build more subs but you get the picture. With enough energy you can support the entire predicted population of the planet.

But emotionally, there are bigger problems. Nation states and large population groups are at risk of starvation and deprivation as a direct result of climate change. And those at risk populations are not getting any support from the people who are putatively putting them at risk. So emotionally, an existential crisis is probably justified.

Post reply on HN