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

171–180 of 315 posts

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

#171

Post by shirro »

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)?

Agricultural production areas and crops will probably have to shift to follow climate and rainfall. I don't want to go all doom and gloom but there is going to be a substantial economic (and perhaps human) cost for future generations.

The people behind climate change denial are basically exercising generational warfare. They are attacking the future of young people and their offspring to maximise the profits of predominantly elderly investors.

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

#172

Post by atmosx »

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…

> might makes right

This is false.

I believe that this assumption was addressed accordingly by Thucydides in his account of the Peloponnesian war around 400 BC.

If you believe that might makes right the time where you will find yourself in a situation of disadvantage will come and then the precedent you have set might come back and haunt you in ways you never had thought possible.

ps. ofc here we're talking about nature and believing that we're might against nature as a species is blasphemy. The earth (the planet) will survive, our species will not :-)

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

#173

Post by LELISOSKA »

mikekchar wrote: post #134
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'm going to suggest 2 things which have historically been unpopular in my postings :-) 1. We don't need to sustain this many people 2. We don't need to sustain this standard of living The first one is pretty straight forward, although it's going to take another 100 years to sort out (barring a major disaster). Shifting child bearing years from the early 20's to the early 30's and changing cultural habits so that eac…

yea but not everybody has a triple digit iq and is a self sustainable engineer and doctor. consumption economy works bc it makes people buy stuff constantly and replenish all the time which in turn makes them work all day therefore driving innovation (as a whole) forward.

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

#174

Post by ageofwant »

foobarian wrote: post #143
partisan wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the survival and prosperity of humanity matters a great deal to me Just curious about what drives that particular viewpoint. Why do you care about the survival of the species? When you die, the world ends. It doesn't really matter what happens after that, does it? You could be dead two milliseconds and then a big rock hits the Earth and everything is gone. Still it doesn't impact you, because you are dead. And I am…

I suspect this kind of thinking is an innate evolutionary reflex. Similar to why people love having kids.

Sure. All live will grow until it consumes all available resources. There is no such thing as voluntary growth control in "natural systems". Agent Smith was wrong when he claimed all other life seems to find a "balance". Balance emerges from mortal competition between species.

Only humans have this: http://www.vhemt.org/

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

#175

Post by wallace_f »

Sometimes I feel I am the only one sceptical of the politics and alarmism surrounding climate change. I am Not saying I'm skeptical that it is real (or to be more appropriately scientific, that the evidence suggests the observed increase in CO2 and temperature most likely is caused by emissions), but I'm saying the politics are more complex than that.

I can think of a number of other issues that pose similar if not more immediate, or greater risks to humanity that have lower economic costs to solve.

Global warming activism also bothers me in some ways. Snobs have an absolute affinity for it, and it seems in this cause it's easy to create an aura of good will without actually having to follow-up and do anything tangible to benefit other people. Think: Buying hybrid cars that pollute more than my simple Honda. Preaching about the importance of action on this topic is also rather convenient: you don't appear to actually have to take any action. Preach about the problems of homelessness, drug abuse, crime, healthcare? There are obvious ways to actually spend your time helping people who are victims there. Want to hold the moral superiority card with as little effort as possible? It's super convenient.

There's also the the west's party line to the rest of the world: We can afford clean energy now, and of course we want it; but even though other nations can't afford it, they're now declared immoral for not embracing it.

None of what I'm saying is that global warming isn't a worthy cause, just that the enormity and alarmism of the politics that surrounds it is cause for question.

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

#176

Post by aaronbrethorst »

wallace_f wrote: post #175

Sometimes I feel I am the only one sceptical of the politics and alarmism surrounding climate change. I am Not saying I'm skeptical that it is real (or to be more appropriately scientific, that the evidence suggests the observed increase in CO2 and temperature most likely is caused by emissions), but I'm saying the politics are more complex than that. I can think of a number of other issues that pose similar if not m…

> I can think of a number of other issues that pose similar if not more immediate, or greater risks to humanity that have lower economic costs to solve.

Cool, like what?

> None of what I'm saying is that global warming isn't a worthy cause, just that the enormity and alarmism of the politics that surrounds it is cause for question.

I agree. But that doesn't make it less of an issue. And cutting off your nose to spite your face doesn't seem like a useful solution, so what's the answer?

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

#177

Post by aaronbrethorst »

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…

> just means that different organisms will thrive

Like non-human fauna.

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

#178

Post by ageofwant »

maratd wrote: post #128
ageofwant wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 constan…

No, its a systems viewpoint. And it can only be held by an organism that can appreciate the system. All other organisms breed util the systems natural capacity is exhausted and continually competes against one another.

You know exactly what I mean by "work". The current 6'th mass extinction (Holocene) is currently ongoing. The species responsible for this has no natural enemies against which we compete and will therefore continue unabated until all resources have been consumed and the system collapses. Just like it always has.

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

#179

Post by the8472 »

brc wrote: post #158
cconroy wrote: post #85

Forgive my ignorance on this issue but Earth has various feedback mechanisms that forestalls CO2: getting absorbed back into rocks and consumption by flora. Is comparing CO2 levels to 4 mya disingenuous because that is just one variable we are isolating? Are we sure that rising CO2 is producing these effects attributed to climate change and not some complicated combination of factors that is evidenced by Earth histor…

No, you're not ignorant. Yes, if the earth were an unstable system it would have destabilised in the past. Yes, it is a combination of factors poorly understood, like the work only now coming out of CERN. Yes, the ROI of the various treaties and tax plans are beyond negative. Yes, this type of comment is verboten.

> Yes, the ROI of the various treaties and tax plans are beyond negative.

Have you factored externalties into those ROI calculations?

> Yes, if the earth were an unstable system it would have destabilised in the past.

A stable system can still have its equilibrium point shifted in one direction or another. Your blood for example is a buffered solution, keeping a relatively stable pH. But it can still be influenced by many things.

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

#180

Post by vixen99 »

bjz_ wrote: post #142
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…

Yes, these things will be rendered insignificant in the fullness of time, but as a human's with limited lives, it's still important to maintain empathy towards the human suffering of the here-and-now, and the very near future. It will be painful, it will be stressful, and we need to brace ourselves for the reality that many of our fellow humans will die from famine, regional war, and refugee crises whilst we struggle…

Well at least we are unlikely to starve: satellite imaging shows very significant greening of the planet in many areas previously barren. How so? As the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs puts it,

“The benefits of carbon dioxide supplementation on plant growth and production within the greenhouse environment have been well understood for many years. For the majority of greenhouse crops, net photosynthesis increases as CO2 levels increase from 340–1,000 ppm (parts per million). Most crops show that for any given level of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), increasing the CO2 level to 1,000 ppm will increase the photosynthesis by about 50% over ambient CO2 levels. For some crops the economics may not warrant supplementing to 1,000 ppm CO2 at low light levels. For others such as tulips, and Easter lilies, no response has been observed."

Post reply on HN