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

251–260 of 315 posts

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

#251

Post by lettergram »

blondie9x wrote: post #241

We all know by now CO2 and CH4 leads to a warmer planet. We also know what's driving greenhouse gas levels to rise across Earth. Contributors are deforestation, intensive animal farming, and primarily the combustion of carbon fossil fuels like coal, tar sands, oil, natural gas etc. But here is the underlying problem, despite us knowing how bad things are, (97+% of scientists who study this field agree we are causing…

CO2 emissions have remained relatively constant from energy producing sources since the 90's in the U.S.[1]. Obviously, this is not the case for China and the alike.

However, what we also don't consider is that cattle, swine, and most of all Humans digestion produce an exorbitant amount of those emissions. I just spend ~10 minutes searching and couldn't find a source regarding how much CO2 we as humans produce, but I would guess it's a lot more than other livestock.

CO2 levels have less of an impact than other chemicals on the atmosphere[2]:

> It (livestock) generates 65 per cent of human-related nitrous oxide, which has 296 times the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CO2. Most of this comes from manure.

[1]https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.ht... [2]http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?newsID=20772

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

#252

Post by JoBrad »

blondie9x wrote: post #241

We all know by now CO2 and CH4 leads to a warmer planet. We also know what's driving greenhouse gas levels to rise across Earth. Contributors are deforestation, intensive animal farming, and primarily the combustion of carbon fossil fuels like coal, tar sands, oil, natural gas etc. But here is the underlying problem, despite us knowing how bad things are, (97+% of scientists who study this field agree we are causing…

Honestly, the whole point of worrying about climate change is its impact to humans (the earth has survived far worse over its history, and will likely survive worse in the future). The suggestions you mentioned all have substantial negative impacts to humanity - arguably as much as climate change itself (i.e. doing nothing) - and has a huge upfront cost, to boot. Additionally, such extreme actions will result in large black markets that render those bans moot, and abide by very few or none of the laws and regulations we have in place to mitigate some small amount of impact to our climate, making the situation worse than it is now.

The only real solution is to innovate our way out of a large amount of our polluting habits, in a way that is cost-effective.

Also, I don't recall any governmental agency saying that we are taking appropriate action to save the planet. Most agencies are saying that we should start taking action, but that we've already passed the point of no return.

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

#253

Post by JoBrad »

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…

re: #2, see the huge instability of the permafrost in areas that are currently warming. It's not a good place to settle humans. http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/siberia-crater...

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

#254

Post by blondie9x »

JoBrad wrote: post #252
blondie9x wrote: post #241

We all know by now CO2 and CH4 leads to a warmer planet. We also know what's driving greenhouse gas levels to rise across Earth. Contributors are deforestation, intensive animal farming, and primarily the combustion of carbon fossil fuels like coal, tar sands, oil, natural gas etc. But here is the underlying problem, despite us knowing how bad things are, (97+% of scientists who study this field agree we are causing…

Honestly, the whole point of worrying about climate change is its impact to humans (the earth has survived far worse over its history, and will likely survive worse in the future). The suggestions you mentioned all have substantial negative impacts to humanity - arguably as much as climate change itself (i.e. doing nothing) - and has a huge upfront cost, to boot. Additionally, such extreme actions will result in larg…

Can you prove that one of my suggestions would have a negative impact on humanity and economic growth?

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

#255

Post by jbattle »

sd8f9iu wrote: post #236
wallace_f wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 gi…

If you're not saying, "it's not worth solving," then what exactly are you saying? What other problems pose "similar if not more immediate, or greater risks to humanity" than climate change? It'd be nice if you could name a few. It seems like your post boils down to, "we have other problems to solve too, besides climate change." Ok. Great. You do 2 things in your post: you prioritize climate change below other problem…

The 'death' of antibiotics? Soil depletion? Hopefully mankind can scrape together the energy & resources to tackle a few existential risks concurrently

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

#256

Post by Turing_Machine »

tstactplsignore wrote: post #33
Turing_Machine wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, I'm all ears (or, technically, eyes, since I'm reading this). How does a 400,000 year old ice core show anything about conditions 4 million years ago? Please be specific.

There are specific mineral records that covary strongly with CO2 levels over that 400,000 year period. However, these mineral records go back millions of years - therefore, we can use the known relationship to predict how CO2 levels have changed in the past. These are known as "proxies" in paleoclimatology, and can be used to estimate past CO2 levels, O2 levels, temperature, and other attributes of Earth's climate. W…

Yeah, I know what a proxy measure is.

That's not what the OP said, though.

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

#257

Post by headShrinker »

JoBrad wrote: post #252
blondie9x wrote: post #241

We all know by now CO2 and CH4 leads to a warmer planet. We also know what's driving greenhouse gas levels to rise across Earth. Contributors are deforestation, intensive animal farming, and primarily the combustion of carbon fossil fuels like coal, tar sands, oil, natural gas etc. But here is the underlying problem, despite us knowing how bad things are, (97+% of scientists who study this field agree we are causing…

Honestly, the whole point of worrying about climate change is its impact to humans (the earth has survived far worse over its history, and will likely survive worse in the future). The suggestions you mentioned all have substantial negative impacts to humanity - arguably as much as climate change itself (i.e. doing nothing) - and has a huge upfront cost, to boot. Additionally, such extreme actions will result in larg…

> The suggestions you mentioned all have substantial negative impacts

Not eating meat, invest Hyper Loop high speed ground travel, home solar, electric cars, dramatically raise air travel cost, stop cutting down tropical forests, and stop burning coal. These are all doable, and with minimal quality of life impact. If a life is ruined because they can't have a McQuarterPounder, a Chevy big block, and flying to Texas every week, maybe they deserve a scorched planet where the trees are paper products, the water is plastic and fracking residue, and all the large animals are dead.

I realize I'm over simplifying but doing NOTHING is a lot different than doing trying something anything with minimal return. We are doing nothing. That's sad.

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

#258

Post by mikeash »

JoBrad wrote: post #252
blondie9x wrote: post #241

We all know by now CO2 and CH4 leads to a warmer planet. We also know what's driving greenhouse gas levels to rise across Earth. Contributors are deforestation, intensive animal farming, and primarily the combustion of carbon fossil fuels like coal, tar sands, oil, natural gas etc. But here is the underlying problem, despite us knowing how bad things are, (97+% of scientists who study this field agree we are causing…

Honestly, the whole point of worrying about climate change is its impact to humans (the earth has survived far worse over its history, and will likely survive worse in the future). The suggestions you mentioned all have substantial negative impacts to humanity - arguably as much as climate change itself (i.e. doing nothing) - and has a huge upfront cost, to boot. Additionally, such extreme actions will result in larg…

Why would investing in renewable energy and next-generation nuclear power result in substantial negative impacts to humanity?

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

#259

Post by tartuffe78 »

headShrinker wrote: post #257
JoBrad wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, the whole point of worrying about climate change is its impact to humans (the earth has survived far worse over its history, and will likely survive worse in the future). The suggestions you mentioned all have substantial negative impacts to humanity - arguably as much as climate change itself (i.e. doing nothing) - and has a huge upfront cost, to boot. Additionally, such extreme actions will result in larg…

> The suggestions you mentioned all have substantial negative impacts Not eating meat, invest Hyper Loop high speed ground travel, home solar, electric cars, dramatically raise air travel cost, stop cutting down tropical forests, and stop burning coal. These are all doable, and with minimal quality of life impact. If a life is ruined because they can't have a McQuarterPounder, a Chevy big block, and flying to Texas e…

Speaking as an American, not eating meat, buying (currently) much more expensive cars, and not being able to afford to fly are huge quality of life impacts.

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

#260

Post by mikeash »

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…

I can never understand why dumping pollution into the atmosphere and making other people bear the costs is categorized under "capitalism" and "free market," while making people actually pay for the costs they impose on others through pollution is considered "redistribution" and "communism."

When somebody burns coal as part of their business and pollutes my air, they are basically imposing a tax on me to subsidize their business. That's not capitalism or economic freedom, that's socialism for business.

Post reply on HN