Live data from Hacker News

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

scientificamerican.com

201–210 of 315 posts

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

#201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Exactly. The most infuriating thing about it is that people keep debating about how serious we should take this. Even that wiki article seems to be poisoned by deniers. I quote from a previous comment of mine:

> "Research carried out in 2008 in the Siberian Arctic has shown millions of tons of methane being released, apparently through perforations in the seabed permafrost,[20] with concentrations in some regions reaching up to 100 times normal levels.[22][23] The excess methane has been detected in localized hotspots in the outfall of the Lena River and the border between the Laptev Sea and the East Siberian Sea. Some melting may be the result of geological heating, but more thawing is believed to be due to the greatly increased volumes of meltwater being discharged from the Siberian rivers flowing north.[24] Current methane release has previously been estimated at 0.5 Mt per year.[25] Shakhova et al. (2008) estimate that not less than 1,400 Gt of carbon is presently locked up as methane and methane hydrates under the Arctic submarine permafrost, and 5–10% of that area is subject to puncturing by open taliks. They conclude that "release of up to 50 Gt of predicted amount of hydrate storage [is] highly possible for abrupt release at any time". That would increase the methane content of the planet's atmosphere by a factor of twelve,[26][27] equivalent in greenhouse effect to a doubling in the current level of CO2."

Yet in the same section, you know what the introduction text reads currently?

> "Most deposits of methane clathrate are in sediments too deep to respond rapidly, and modelling by Archer (2007) suggests the methane forcing should remain a minor component of the overall greenhouse effect.[17] Clathrate deposits destabilize from the deepest part of their stability zone, which is typically hundreds of metres below the seabed. A sustained increase in sea temperature will warm its way through the sediment eventually, and cause the shallowest, most marginal clathrate to start to break down; but it will typically take on the order of a thousand years or more for the temperature signal to get through.[17]"

So let me get this straight: Because someone found a model from 2007 that makes things look mostly fine, we ignore empirical data from 2008 that shows that a Clathrate Gun of 50 Gt could go off at any time? Please someone tell me how I'm wrong just so I don't have to go crazy here.

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

#202
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…

I don't get this concern for Earth itself. The planet had much higher CO2 levels before life began. Then plants etc. absorbed some of that CO2, and a lot of it is now in coal, oil, etc. instead of in the air as CO2. When we are burning fuels, we are actually returning the atmosphere to a more original state. However that state is not good for us. So when we are talking about global warming, it is today's life, including us humans, that will suffer, not the planet itself.

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

#203
post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's not saying this is all fine and dandy, hes saying its not an apocalypse, just a global catastrophe from which both the earth and humanity will recover.

The odds are a bit longer on humanity surviving this mess than the planet.

Humanity will become extinct long before the biosphere. You need to think more inhuman [1]

"It is based on a recognition of the astonishing beauty of things and their living wholeness, and on a rational acceptance of the fact that mankind is neither central nor important in the universe; our vices and blazing crimes are as insignificant as our happiness. […] Turn outward from each other, so far as need and kindness permit, to the vast life and inexhaustible beauty beyond humanity. This is not a slight matter, but an essential condition of freedom, and of moral and vital sanity.’

[1] http://dark-mountain.net/stories/books/book-1/the-falling-ye...

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

#204
post #154
post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 loo…

A bigger problem is positive feedback loops. Historically we've had much more CO2 in the atmosphere than we do now. Why didn't the methane bubble up and kill everything then?

It did. That was part of the sad chain of events causing one of the biggest mass extinctions ever 250m years ago. Its one of the theories anyway.

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

#205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Out of curiosity, how does them working all day and buying things drive meaningful innovation? Less resource usage per person might instead free up people to do innovative work because fewer people need to do the other work.

Bored, educated people with some free time seem to innovate the most; as opposed to who is paid to do it.

It might change the direction of innovation, but I'm not certain if that is good or bad. I'd love to cut down on the innovation done in advertising or algorithmic stock trading.

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

#206
post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're on the right track, but ditch fusion and flywheels. It'll be battery storage, wind, and solar: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-13/we-ve-almo...

And plain old demand shifting.

What's demand shifting?

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

#207

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)?

>Is sustainability even possible anymore?

Yes, but it clearly involves population control.

We should be sending birth-control, not food, to developing nations.

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

#208
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…

You are correct that we don't understand EXACTLY how this works. But we do have an increasingly good idea, and it is now very widely accepted that increasing CO2 levels are due to fossil fuels, and that they are going to make life for future generations miserable. And I don't mean a few beach-side swimming pools falling into the ocean miserable - I mean millions of people drowning in a storm surge in Bangladesh, and…

With CFCs it helped that a single company manufactured 25% of the global supply (according to Wikipedia anyway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DuPont#Chlorofluorocarbons) and when presented with evidence that they were harming the environment, led efforts to find alternatives.

CFCs were a great victory, and encouraging when it comes to battling CO2 emissions, but also much easier to curtail both politically and technologically.

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

#210

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)?" In short no. The reason being the current system requires endless growth (measured currently in GDP) in order sustain this many people with current standards of living. Of course current standards of living are not enough, especially for people in poverty around with world. If growth doesn't continue th…

It's not true that the economic system requires endless growth. The EU and Japan haven't grown much in recent times and life goes on. The electorate quite like growth though and will tend to vote for governments that provide it.
Post reply on HN