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

211–220 of 315 posts

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

#211

Post by tim333 »

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)?

>Is sustainability even possible anymore?

Yeah sure. The only thing we're really unsustainable on is burning fossil fuels. Solar is growing exponentially and at the current rate would be able to replace most fossil fuel use in a few decades.

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

#212

Post by eru »

danieltillett wrote: post #161
eru wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you bury the plants. That's what happened to create coal and oil. The problem of too much CO2 in the atmosphere will solve itself in a few thousand years: the ocean currents will sequester lots of carbon in the depths of the sea. Of course, people alive today and their children and grand-children don't want to wait for so long.

I think the time frames for returning to pre-human levels is longer than a few thousand years [1, 2]. 1. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/03/how-lo... 2. http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.12...

Thanks. Sorry, I was going from memory here.

In any case, it'll happen by itself, but it's longer than humans can afford to wait.

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

#213

Post by eru »

omginternets wrote: post #206
eru wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And plain old demand shifting.

What's demand shifting?

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand_response

Basically, instead of just relying on batteries, consumers of power can often also shift when they are going to consume the power. Spot markets and future markets can help here.

We already see that in industrial applications, where you can get power very cheaply, if you can tolerate arbitrary power cuts during peak hours.

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

#214

Post by wallace_f »

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…

Seriously? I am opposed to climate change? Did you read my post? I never said I am opposed to progress on climate change or that it's not worth solving.

This is exactly the type of politics I dislike when it comes to climate change: I called into question some of the political aspects of climate change, and now I'm being cast out of as an infidel, non-believer, someone opposed to climate change progress, and being given a bunch of straw man arguments.

2. OK, but what are you really contributing here? I didn't specifically mention any other problems when I said other problems have more immediate or greater consequences, so when you say "that's not the case with other problems you mention." Well, nevermind. I assume you latched onto problems I later mentioned that are easier to make changes with in your community, like crime, homelessness, etc., and conflated that with the earlier argument I made.

Also, to address this idea about climate change being irreversible. That's a problem, because it may likely be very likely to be very difficult, but keep in mind: climate change has been happening for billions of years and carbon sequestration technology already exists. Atmospheric CO2 and temperatures already have been higher than they are now... The idea that it is irreversible is not scientific fact. Anyways, that discussion can easily serve as a straw man debate than really getting distracts from the message of what I was saying: It IS a worthy cause to fight against, I said that.

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

#216

Post by alex_duf »

ajnin wrote: post #93
tgb wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Beautiful. I'd love to have seen it in an equal-area projection, though. The high concentrations are disproportionately in the high latitudes where area is stretched, so I think the yearly variation would look a little less ominous that way. Anyway, I hope one day we can get a new Sim Earth with this style of simulation and presentation.

Here's another visualization by Oregon State University, similar to the video but with a navigable equal-area map : http://co2.digitalcartography.org/

Wow, that's even better :)

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

#217

Post by effingwewt »

ensiferum wrote: post #215

I walk to work. Now are you part of the solution or part of the problem?

Yea, not everyone has that luxury. If you said something along the lines of "I've been contacting my state representative to push for more reform, donating to 'X' to aid in public awareness, etc", I would have given you the pat on the back you so obviously crave. And what about recycling, or purchasing avenues which ensure re-population? Plenty we can all do other than the current popular hipster "in" thing.

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

#218

Post by sergiosgc »

brooklyndavs wrote: post #145
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)?" 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…

> The reason being the current system requires endless growth (measured currently in GDP) in order sustain this many people with current standards of living.

I don't think we are anywhere near the growth limit on the planet. (Economic) Growth is mostly limited by energy use, and current tech can handle growth for about a century. Add technological evolution, and we're easily in the 500 years range of energy use increase.

By then, all bets are off. Heck, for the 100 year span all bets are off.

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

#219

Post by zamalek »

baddox wrote: post #46
hyperbovine wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no doubt at we will try this, plus a lot of even dumber ideas, once the shit really starts to hit the fan. The world is not going to just sit back as Manhattan, Mumbai, Shanghai, Sydney, Rio, etc. disappear under a foot or two of water. Politicians (the same one who spent 50 years failing on this issue) will demand action. It's the best argument I can think of for putting serious research effort into geoengine…

It's probably a lot cheaper for those cities to build flood control systems.

> build flood control systems.

Water is only one problem. By 2070 some places might be uninhabitable according to this[1] study, due to heat.

> At WBTs [wet bulb temperature] above 35C, the high heat and humidity make it physically impossible for even the fittest human body to cool itself by sweating, with fatal consequences after six hours. For less fit people, the fatal WBT is below 35C. A WBT temperature of 35C – the combination of 46C heat and 50% humidity – was almost reached in Bandar Mahshahr in Iran in July 2015.

At some point it's going to cost big bucks. If the study holds water, the Gulf will either need to be evacuated or artificial habitation will need to be built.

[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/26/extreme-...

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

#220

Post by FuNe »

strommen wrote: post #152
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…

> different organisms will thrive Like mosquitos, ticks and other disease-carrying insects that kill 1 million humans every year.

Welcome Zika et al
Post reply on HN