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

291–300 of 315 posts

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

#291

Post by pmyjavec »

FuNe wrote: post #231

Let it roll. Few in the industrialized world if anyone really gives a shite (1). Lots of well-fed educated westerners would lose sleep if "free" economy is coughing but don't really care about this. Run away capitalism creating the problem in the first place is also -ehm- the reason why mostly leftists seem to get it. Not that this helps. It just makes the whole thing even more partizan. Sad truth is the guys that ar…

Good comment!

I'm highly surprised by the skepticism, especially by 'Hacker News' readers, some comments read as if science is but an inconvenience.

Westerners don't live in complete isolation from the environment and other nations of the world.

Our air comes from our oceans (which are in-trouble), cheap goods that prop up modern consumer driven economies (very sadly) come from places which are already being hit hard by warming temperatures, deforestation and drought and mass migration events are already taking place.

More needs to be done.

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

#292

Post by Oletros »

curiousgeorgio wrote: post #139

Go ahead and call me all the usual names (I don't care), but I'm a skeptic of a few things - especially things like science that has strong political influences/biases/implications - and yes, sometimes even mainstream science. But no, I don't deny or ignore the apparent trends. That's why I also don't feel (as others have expressed here) any sense of grave alarmism or fear about the effects of warming. When climate-r…

> When climate-related deaths have steadily decreased in recent history[1]

And exactly what does mean that figure from CATO Institute?

> and fewer people are in climate-related danger now than ever before in history

Do you have any link to back that claim?

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

#293

Post by Oletros »

dominiek wrote: post #287

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2016/03/denying-the-cl...

From the site:

> The name change from "global warming" to "climate change" was, to my mind, less about science and more about a marketing effort to deal with the fact the temperatures had plateaued over the last 10-20

Someone that can say that the term have changed from global warming to climate change is because has an agenda because it is false.

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

#294

Post by Oletros »

stale2002 wrote: post #194
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

An small percentage of land with a high percentage of population and infrastructure

> There is tons of land in Canada and Russia that is currently way too cold to do anything with

Yap, and with the warming the Sun will also change and will shine like in the meridional regions, isn't?

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

No, it won't be

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

#295

Post by ArkyBeagle »

JoBrad wrote: post #269
NickM wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Most of the things I have read which accuse energy companies of being subsidized lack a basic understanding of the historical accounting mores of those industries. This is principally because of depletion allowances and industrial depreciation. Both of those still apply and have full standing in the law.

I am not saying this should not be changed but rather that it'd be quite a change.

As a USAian, I can expect my energy need to be met by cleaner tech than someone in, say Africa. Natural gas is here and will make a difference.

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

#296

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

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…

> If we do not rally against it, our ability to live on this planet is at stake.

I think you're speculating here, we don't actually know this.

I believe the primary reason we haven't done anything yet is because the effects of increased CO2 levels haven't yet reached the scale of mass food production shortages, or a sudden increase the price of basic food stuffs.

And since we can't know whether that will ever happen, we're easily able to ignore, or at least not be very concerned about, climate change.

Your proposed solutions all require agreement on a global level. I can't see that happening until we actually face an immanent existential threat.

And lastly, on a personal note, the reason I've stopped caring is this: people have been trying to tell us the environmental end of times is nigh for decades, and it hasn't happened. Each year we continue to produce more food and feed more people.

Granted, we should probably stop burning fossil fuels, but I disagree with the reasoning. We shouldn't stop burning fossil fuels because of the CO2 output, I think that's a red herring. We should stop burning fossil fuels because of all the other junk doing so puts in our environment. More uranium has been released in to the environment by burning coal for electricity that nuclear power probably ever will.

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

#297

Post by graeme »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #296
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…

> If we do not rally against it, our ability to live on this planet is at stake. I think you're speculating here, we don't actually know this. I believe the primary reason we haven't done anything yet is because the effects of increased CO2 levels haven't yet reached the scale of mass food production shortages, or a sudden increase the price of basic food stuffs. And since we can't know whether that will ever happen,…

Your fifth paragraph (the personal note) is atrocious reasoning. It's the equivalent of saying "There won't be a housing crash. People have warned about that for years, but each year home prices keep rising."

The effects of the carbon we're releasing vastly exceed human lifespans. So you have to be prepared for the possibility that predictions will take decades to have a visible impact.

The counter to your "we produce more food and feed more people claim" is that we've done so largely by drawing down capital stocks. Stored carbon, topsoil, aquifers, etc.

We can't know that those increased support numbers are proof of anything. They might be, but we'd only know in hindsight. And by then it's too late.

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

#298

Post by mikeash »

wallace_f wrote: post #290
mikeash wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 the…

> 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." Your confusion is well founded. It is actually the other way around. Privatizing externalities (the environmental costs) is ho…

That seems quite sensible, but unfortunately every time something is brought up, people come out of the woodwork to criticize it on the basis that it's anti-capitalist, destroys free markets, etc.

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

#299

Post by omginternets »

mikeash wrote: post #262
omginternets wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

I'm not convinced by that argument (though I've heard it before).

This strikes me as assuming the births are planned, whereas I don't see how they possibly could be.

Enriching these countries is certainly part of the solution, but controlling population is part of the solution towards enriching them in the first place.

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

#300

Post by sd8f9iu »

joslin01 wrote: post #275
sd8f9iu wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

He's expressing his concern for the politicalization of the climate issue. It's the same concern that one might have had for the "war on poverty" in which the clout & organizations surrounding the issue become more important than the issue itself. He's also expressing concern for wealthy individuals concerning themselves with "climate change", but don't have the capability to make a direct, observable impact. He thus…

He made some assertions. I argued against them. He accused me of misunderstanding him. I defended myself and asked him to clarify. I think I'm entitled to argue and defend my claims. Nothing about that is turning this into a battle.

> He thus raises the question: "If we can save 10 humans now, is it worth worrying about saving 100 later?"

No, he said "I can think of a number of other issues that pose similar if not more immediate, or greater risks to humanity that have lower economic costs to solve." That is a much broader statement than saying, "I can think of problems with lesser risks, but that are more immediate." I don't see how my points 1 and 2 don't address his claim. I am challenging him by pointing out the nuances (irreversibility) and seriousness of climate change.

> you've devolved it into a battle and put intent behind his words such as "you criticize the behaviors of climate change activists" that probably don't fairly represent his.

He says, "Global warming activism also bothers me in some ways. Snobs have an absolute affinity for it..." That is criticizing the behaviors of climate change activists.

Post reply on HN