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

181–190 of 315 posts

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

#181

Post by whatshisface »

aaronbrethorst wrote: post #176
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…

>Cool, like what?

Regular environmental damage, for one. We still have lots of forest-burning and toxic chemical exposure around the world. In fact, a major extinction is going on in the Amazon right now because of deforestation.

We could also throw in public health crises like heart disease and diabetes - like climate, we may be able to improve those by changing our behavior.

It is absolutely the case the case that present human and environmental health is under greatest assault by things other than climate. This is not to make climate less, but to point out that other problems loom a little larger than most people think.

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

#182

Post by sigmaml »

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…

I agree with most of what you have said. In fact, in my talks in various places, I propose similar changes. I give concrete examples that make sense to them locally. Less number of children, no air conditioning, and less number of clothes are included my set of examples. A few of the others that I talk about are excessive home furniture and furnishings, frequent and expensive vacations, and exorbitantly-priced housing.

Reception varies widely. Overall, I have seen that rural and semi-urban population is more receptive than the urban. Most urban population has a consumerism-driven notion of "standard of life" that can not coexist with any practice of economy that disagrees with it.

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

#183

Post by lancewiggs »

whatshisface wrote: post #181
aaronbrethorst wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>Cool, like what? Regular environmental damage, for one. We still have lots of forest-burning and toxic chemical exposure around the world. In fact, a major extinction is going on in the Amazon right now because of deforestation. We could also throw in public health crises like heart disease and diabetes - like climate, we may be able to improve those by changing our behavior. It is absolutely the case the case that…

Deforestation is a climate change problem as well as a local ecosystem problem. Solve for both.

Life expectancies have risen by a ridiculous amount over the last 150 years. Wide-spread diabetes is a symptom of a wealthy society that is over-indulging - solve for that problem, and, you guessed it, climate change is assisted too.

Climate change can destroy our global ecosystem - the one that sustains all life. While these other things may be more urgent, nothing (aside from a large object in space heading to Earth) has quote the same existential gravitas.

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

#184

Post by the8472 »

whatshisface wrote: post #181
aaronbrethorst wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>Cool, like what? Regular environmental damage, for one. We still have lots of forest-burning and toxic chemical exposure around the world. In fact, a major extinction is going on in the Amazon right now because of deforestation. We could also throw in public health crises like heart disease and diabetes - like climate, we may be able to improve those by changing our behavior. It is absolutely the case the case that…

We only got one global atmosphere but lots of hearts and forests. It is a single point of failure.

And fighting some of those things, like pollution from coal plants, also goes hand in hand with reducing CO2 emissions.

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

#187

Post by sd8f9iu »

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…

1. The big fear with climate change is that it's irreversible. That is not the case with the other problems you mention.

2. Climate change is predicted to cause food supply problems for hundreds of millions of people, trillions of dollars of economic damage, and rising sea levels that flood coastal cities. I don't see how the other problems you mention are more dire.

3. The problems you mention – homelessness, drug abuse, crime, healthcare – are problems that affect us on a domestic level. Climate change disproportionately affects poor people in other countries, yet the CO2 in our atmosphere has been disproportionately created by wealthy countries. How is addressing this snobby?

4. True climate change action would require upending the entire energy sector of the economy. How would this be not taking any action? Just because the action hasn't taken place yet doesn't mean the preaching should stop.

I find climate change opposition adopts the following trajectory: 1. It's not real. 2. Ok, but humans aren't causing it. 3. Ok, but it's not worth solving.

Your response is currently on step 3, and I don't see the logic behind it.

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

#188

Post by briandear »

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…

My problem is that the climate change activism crowd have admitted that the benefit of climate change regulation is income redistribution and effectively the destruction of capitalism. The climate change movement started gaining stream after the Soviet Union collapsed. I am very skeptical of climate activists with their almost identical similarity to the pro-Soviet propagandists from the 1980s.

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.. ..One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.."

--Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of the IPCC’s Working Group III, and lead author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007

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

#189

Post by stale2002 »

ak217 wrote: post #113
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)?

No, sustainability is an empty concept in a future where the status quo is past the point of no return (which we're already in). We will need to move a hell of a lot faster than the Paris Agreement to prevent huge die-offs of people and loss of biodiversity. We're going to need a Manhattan Project for carbon sequestration.

People have been saying there would be a die off since the 80s. Did you ever read the population bomb?

We'll adapt like we always do.

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

#190

Post by the8472 »

briandear wrote: post #188
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…

My problem is that the climate change activism crowd have admitted that the benefit of climate change regulation is income redistribution and effectively the destruction of capitalism. The climate change movement started gaining stream after the Soviet Union collapsed. I am very skeptical of climate activists with their almost identical similarity to the pro-Soviet propagandists from the 1980s. "But one must say clea…

To some extent government is always income redistribution. Even a flat tax rate still takes more money from the rich, in absolute amounts, and uses it to build things and provide services that benefit everyone.

So unless you think all governments should cease to exist you indirectly agree to some level of income redistribution already.

And it's not like subsidizing clean energy infrastructure in developing countries would magically equalize everyone's living standards like communism claimed to do. So it's still fairly limited redistribution.

So where exactly is the problem? You're not saying any more than "fixing the problem will take some money that has to be invested globally, not just locally".

Post reply on HN