Antarctic CO2 Hit 400 PPM for First Time in 4M Years • Hacker News Board

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

#191

Post by briandear » Fri, Jun 17, 2016, 7:18 AM UTC

sd8f9iu wrote: post #187

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 a…

I've been hearing about the sky falling because of climate change most of my life. Yet in the 1970s it was global cooling. The easiest way to convince someone of a particular 'danger' is to promise world-ending catastrophe.

The science was 'settled' on Eugenics during the early 20th century as well and we saw how that turned out.

There's no mention of any positive effects of global warming. The climate is certainly changing.. But then again it has always changed and the world will adapt and evolve as it always has. When Leonardo DiCaprio gives up a private jet for a city bus, then maybe I'll start to worry. The science has been misappropriated by anti-capitalist activists.

Forgive me for not trusting the anti-capitalist cabal that share more values with Lenin than with Milton Friedman.

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

#192

Post by briandear » Fri, Jun 17, 2016, 7:21 AM UTC

lancewiggs wrote: post #183

whatshisface wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 th…

So remove the wealth and thus limit over indulging? Ok, you first.

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

#193

Post by briandear » Fri, Jun 17, 2016, 7:23 AM UTC

the8472 wrote: post #190

briandear wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's not my point. My point is that climate change policy isn't about climate change, thus I am skeptical about climate change activists because their goal isn't climate, but redistribution. Essentially, they're lying.

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

#194

Post by stale2002 » Fri, Jun 17, 2016, 7:25 AM UTC

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #57

Retric wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never. The issue with climate change is it's not going to harm wealthy people, so it's not a problem for them. In other words bad shit might happen to 75% of the worlds population, but so what. During the Irish potato famine, Ireland exported food. Think about that for a little bit. Throughout the entire period of the Famine, Ireland was exporting enormous quantities of food. Cormac O'Grada points out that, in Irelan…

Climate change is already harming wealthy people in the UK who bought nice houses on flood plains or near the Thames. It's no longer possible to buy insurance in some areas - the insurance companies are ahead of the game on modelling climate change impacts - and many people are trying to move away from those areas, with varying degrees of success. Parts of the country are literally becoming uninhabitable. I had to dr…

As a total percentage of the world's land a very small percentage will become "uninhabitable", though right?

And much more currently uninhabited land will now become usable. There is tons of land in Canada and Russia that is currently way too cold to do anything with.

TBH, the world would be a better place if it was a couple degrees warmer.

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

#195

Post by the8472 » Fri, Jun 17, 2016, 7:25 AM UTC

briandear wrote: post #193

the8472 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's not my point. My point is that climate change policy isn't about climate change, thus I am skeptical about climate change activists because their goal isn't climate, but redistribution. Essentially, they're lying.

All they're saying is that it'll take more than just a bit of regulating emissions. If anything they're being honest.

You're confusing goals and solutions here.

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

#196

Post by lqdc13 » Fri, Jun 17, 2016, 7:26 AM UTC

sd8f9iu wrote: post #187

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 a…

1. It is reversible over time if people concentrated on removing CO2 from the air.

2. This is not yet known. What if Russia opens borders and lets people in as long as they stay in Siberia?

What if food supply shortage helps innovate instead or changes priorities?

3. Snobby in a way for criticizing countries that are going through their versions of industrial revolution when the West went through it already.

4. Not much action from that person. People are really bad at counting calories. I bet everyone is way off when counting their carbon footprint and they would get outraged by others when they themselves could be outputting way more.

Best thing to do in terms of carbon footprint unless you are directly working on solutions is to not have children and start working on solutions. Finger pointing and preaching doesn't help.

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

#197

Post by tjl » Fri, Jun 17, 2016, 7:28 AM UTC

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…

They talk like that because it's actually true in one sense. There are a lot of side-effects of capitalism that aren't accounted for in a business' costs. It's the tragedy of the commons. We all share a common environment, but there's often no cost for harm to that environment.

On top of all that, developing nations are trying to get to our living standard. To do that, they'll be harming the environment as well in increasing amounts, so it's necessary for one to consider that as a factor.

A common way to consider these issues is to issue carbon credits that one can spend. If your business doesn't need them, you can sell them to another business which creates a market for them (and hence a cost). If you do something that reduces emissions you can get more credits. Every country would get some and could trade the credits as well. To help developing nations, they would get a larger share of the credits which would naturally limit the increase of CO2 emissions that the developed nations would get. But, if the developing nations don't need the credits they could sell them to the developed nations to get things they need.

That's all a pretty simplistic way of putting things and the system is far more complicated, but that's the overall idea.

So, it is a redistribution of the world's wealth, but it's still a capitalist system.

The problem is that if you don't give the developing nations something, they won't sign on to the agreement and they could build a lot of cheap but polluting plants and equipment and make things that much harder on the countries that do sign the agreement. It's all very tricky.

A friend of mine did his PhD work on energy planning in developing nations and he focused on India (and went to live there for a year, I was his remote tech support). He's now a senior person at a NGO that does work in developing nations so I've heard him talk about this at length before.

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

#198

Post by goldenkey » Fri, Jun 17, 2016, 7:37 AM UTC

m_mueller wrote: post #123

eru wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Holy shit! The methane clathrate gun is scary stuff..so basically there's a temperature that we dont exactly know that could eradicate our species in some kind if irreversible chain reaction. And almost no one talks about it.. Ive never heard of MCG before, thanks for your post.

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

#199

Post by nradov » Fri, Jun 17, 2016, 7:38 AM UTC

briandear wrote: post #186

"Carbon pollution" -- would we ever claim that higher oxygen levels were "Oxygen pollution." Plant life thrives at higher CO2 levels, so calling it "pollution" is rather political.

Of course we would claim that higher oxygen levels were pollution. Oxygen is a toxin, albeit a necessary one. If you breathe PPO2 > 0.5 atm for a few days it will wreck your lungs. And any increase in atmospheric oxygen would cause a proportional increase in fires.

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

#200

Post by sd8f9iu » Fri, Jun 17, 2016, 7:55 AM UTC

lqdc13 wrote: post #196

sd8f9iu wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

1. It is reversible over time if people concentrated on removing CO2 from the air. 2. This is not yet known. What if Russia opens borders and lets people in as long as they stay in Siberia? What if food supply shortage helps innovate instead or changes priorities? 3. Snobby in a way for criticizing countries that are going through their versions of industrial revolution when the West went through it already. 4. Not m…

1. Is there a viable technology to do this right now? Is there bound to be one within a decade?

2. That's why I said "predicted." Relocating hundreds of millions of poor people to Russia is not a solution to climate change. Look at the problems we are having now with accepting a couple million refugees from Syria. Plus, this doesn't address the flooding and economic cost. The long-term effects of climate change on humanity are overwhelmingly negative.

3. Virtually all climate change activists I know of primarily advocate reducing emissions at home (in the US for me). The goal is not to prevent other countries from industrializing, it's to prevent them from emitting CO2. This may be possible with green energy. Ultimately, the atmosphere doesn't care where the emissions come from.

4. I don't really care what supporting climate change action says about an individual person, I care about results.

> Best thing to do in terms of carbon footprint unless you are directly working on solutions is to not have children and start working on solutions. Finger pointing and preaching doesn't help.

Yes, finger pointing doesn't help. But at least in the US, we already have the technological and economic means to drastically reduce our carbon footprint. The problem is political will. We need top-down political action to force green energy – as you hint at, individuals trying to reduce their carbon footprint will never be enough. There is unfortunately no other way.