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

261–270 of 315 posts

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

#261

Post by NickM »

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 to humanity - arguably as much as climate change itself

I think that assertion deserves to be examined a bit more closely.

We are already effectively subsidizing the fossil fuel industry to the tune of 5+ trillion USD per year [1]. This is a figure from the IMF that includes direct monetary subsidies as well as externalities like public health, environmental damage, etc.

So the question now becomes this: would switching to renewables cost more than that? If we started dumping that same amount of money into renewables and corresponding infrastructure, how quickly could we switch away from fossil fuels? If we do some impromptu calculations based on current cost of solar panels, batteries, etc., it seems like it might take maybe 20 years.

Obviously it's not that simple in practice, but I think this demonstrates that humanity could theoretically switch away from fossil fuels without enduring any severe hardships. This isn't a problem of the technology not being good enough[2], or renewables being too expensive: it's just a political/organizational problem.

[1] http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.aspx?sk=42940.0 [2] With the possible exception of jet planes, for which batteries aren't good enough to provide a compelling alternative yet. But I would guess that when the electric car market really starts to take off, battery tech will start improving a lot faster.

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

#262

Post by mikeash »

omginternets wrote: post #207
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? Yes, but it clearly involves population control. We should be sending birth-control, not food, to developing nations.

Birth control doesn't help when people want to have lots of children. Having lots of children is an essential survival strategy in a poor country. If you want them to have fewer children, make them wealthier.

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

#263

Post by mikeash »

tim333 wrote: post #43
nxzero wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Question is if humanity would have been able to survive for the duration of those 4m years; Earth surviving humanity to my knowledge has never been the issue.

Well, our ancestors were around. It seems it was about 2C hotter from 10 to 4m years ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.svg

"Our ancestors were around" is a useless thing to say. Every single extinct species had an unbroken chain of ancestors going back to the very first life forms.

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

#264

Post by refurb »

throwaway5752 wrote: post #79
m_mueller wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way I see it, sooner or later it will come down to atmospheric engineering (i.e. managing reflective airborne molecules, like an artificial volcanic winter). The question will be wether we have this technology sorted out until the situation becomes desperate and whether the world will be politically stable enough for an entity to take responsibility over this - it's going to be like a sword of damocles over every…

How does that address ocean acidification?

Because ocean acidification is caused by atmospheric CO2? Pull CO2 out of the atmosphere and you'll reduce the amount of CO2 dissolved in the ocean.

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

#265

Post by mikeash »

tr1ck5t3r wrote: post #224

Its nice picking your time scales and models to convey a message as this image shows when CO2 was in the thousands parts per million. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Phaneroz... Now whilst its true the sun is heating up before it goes super nova millions of years in the future, which is what alot of the global warming fear is based on, and yes man has contributed a small % of CO2 by releasing CO2…

"Now whilst its true the sun is heating up before it goes super nova millions of years in the future, which is what alot of the global warming fear is based on...."

This is absolute nonsense and I sincerely hope you're trolling and don't actually believe this. The Sun is too small to go supernova, and the gradual heating it experiences happens on timescales far too long for most people to care about. The Sun's evolution will eventually render Earth uninhabitable unless something is done, but that's in something like half a billion years. The consequences of global warming due to increased greenhouse gas emissions are being felt now, and will become acute within decades or centuries.

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

#266

Post by JoBrad »

blondie9x wrote: post #254
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…

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

In general, the issue I see is using a hammer to prevent people from surviving in a complex environment, vs using innovation to promote a more sustainable way to make a living. People aren't usually polluting because they love dirty air, water, hate polar bears, or even because they think it's a good thing to do. People drive cars for hours each day because there isn't a viable (cost-effective) alternative.

> banning fossil fuels entirely

No fossil fuels means the global delivery of goods and services comes to an immediate halt. Medicine, food, clothing, power - everything stops. We are absolutely too reliant on fossil fuels, and we have to change that. But you may be forgetting how long it took to get us hooked on one of the easiest-to-consume energy resources on the planet. Moving to a resource which takes more work to get energy from is not going to happen overnight. And if we did come up with something overnight, it's probably not thought-through enough to be a real solution.

> banning deforestation

This issue is much more complicated than it seems. Let's take the Amazon rainforest as an example. A large portion of the deforestation is occurring because single-family farms are clearing forest to make a farm, so they can grow crops. How do we handle situations like that without materially affecting the ability of people to support themselves?

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

#267

Post by phkahler »

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…

I often forget the difference between deforestation and desertification. For the later, which is an even worse problem you might want to watch this TED talk:

https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_worl...

As for some of your other suggestions "global carbon pricing system" reminds me of cap-and-trade which is a very political process if implemented. A simpler and fairer way to do that is to simply tax hydrocarbons and coal coming out of the ground. Then the price will be passed on to whomever uses it - tax the source rather than the use, it's much simpler and less subject to political manipulation and agendas. As for changing peoples diets, why not change their reproductive habits? All of these problems stem from having too many people. You can cut down a few forests, you can pump a few oil wells, you can raise cattle, the problem is having too much of that stuff to support an untenable number of people. We don't even have jobs for all of them. IMHO every country should have a means to provide birth control to anyone who wants it. A simple and effective long term attack on all of these problem, but no, it may not be enough by itself.

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

#268

Post by mikeash »

frogpelt wrote: post #107

What if we (humans) don't survive this? It won't really matter in the long run.

On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.

If you have a sufficiently long view, nothing matters. The universe will experience heat death in a mere 10^1000 years, a blip on the total timeline.

I happen to care about humans, though. Most humans do.

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

#269

Post by JoBrad »

NickM wrote: post #261
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 to humanity - arguably as much as climate change itself I think that assertion deserves to be examined a bit more closely. We are already effectively subsidizing the fossil fuel industry to the tune of 5+ trillion USD per year [1]. This is a figure from the IMF that includes direct monetary subsidies as well as externalities like public health, env…

We should stop subsidies for all fossil fuels, and begin phasing in taxation of fossil fuels to account for their cost. But the cost I'm talking about it not just about money. There isn't a viable alternative to a whole host of products that we use. Off the top of my head I can think of plastics (huge) and large equipment. Even using energy-reclamation for garbage trucks is an "innovation" for us. We simply couldn't do it with the current paradigm. You also have to consider that the majority of humanity is evolutionarily wired to be change-averse. Overturning our current infrastructure is not easy, and will require trillions of dollars of investment, for essentially the same level of service that we have today. That's hard to convince people to do. And even the best idea is worth nothing if people won't adopt it.

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

#270

Post by mikeash »

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.

Would you object if I filled your house with pure oxygen, or would you just allow it to happen?
Post reply on HN