Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Obituary: Great Barrier Reef

outsideonline.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 54 posts

Re: Obituary: Great Barrier Reef

#31

Post by adrianN »

lucozade wrote: post #26
kodroid wrote: post #14

Ignoring the errors in the article, what can we do? Due to the selfishness and shortsightedness of our race, I think the only way we are not totally screwed is if we (quickly) invent some tech that cleans up the atmosphere and oceans - not an easy task!

> if we (quickly) invent some tech that cleans up the atmosphere and oceans Unfortunately this is based on the same logic that says re-writing from scratch is optimal as there's no bugs in code you haven't written yet. As unhelpful as this may be, I would characterise our current state of knowledge as: we know enough about how our planet works to know that our planet's climate is changing largely due to our activity.…

I think bringing CO2 down to pre-industrial times would be a pretty save bet. If we had a source of massive CO2-free power we could extract CO2 from the atmosphere and turn it back into coal, effectively unburning all the coal and oil that we burned so far.

Technology that tries to undo climate change without that is what's risky.

Re: Obituary: Great Barrier Reef

#32

Post by jfoutz »

triplesec wrote: post #17
sirtaj wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ocean reacts to temperature changes in the order of decades. The effect of things we do today will only really be apparent in approx. 20 years. Even if by some stroke of universal good sense we stop global warming today (this is not going to happen, of course), this only gives us hope for whatever's left unbleached at that time.

That's a good point, but nonetheless the article doesn't provide any figures or estimates. So other readers can point to the continued life on the reef and say 'lies', and bury their heads in the sand too. Even if it will all be dead in 20 years, or 40. The article talks of 450[units] carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We're at 400 now. No data on when we get there nor graphs or estimates of when the rest dies off.

Roughly 50 ppm per 30 years. Early 50s was 300 ppm. That seemed to be the upper limit for a long time. There are a bunch of graphs around. It's seasonal and has a hint of an exponential.

1000 ppm starts affecting performance from co2 poisoning.

Re: Obituary: Great Barrier Reef

#33

Post by hudibras »

kodroid wrote: post #22
andrewwhartion wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To quote the article... "With no force on earth capable of preventing the oceans from continuing to warm and acidify for centuries to come, Veron had no illusions about the future." I feel you're missing the point of the article. The reality is that the reef effectively has a terminal illness and there's little anyone can do now. Stage 5. Acceptance.

> The reality is that the reef effectively has a terminal illness and there's little anyone can do now Totally understand that - but the article is written from the point of view that its already dead, which it of course is not, which will cause people to ignore the article. If I was diagnosed with a terminal illness today, I would not write to everyone I know saying I was dead, I would say I was dying.

It's called "rhetoric" and it's been around for thousands of years.

Re: Obituary: Great Barrier Reef

#34

Post by frederikvs »

andrewwhartion wrote: post #24
kodroid wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The reality is that the reef effectively has a terminal illness and there's little anyone can do now Totally understand that - but the article is written from the point of view that its already dead, which it of course is not, which will cause people to ignore the article. If I was diagnosed with a terminal illness today, I would not write to everyone I know saying I was dead, I would say I was dying.

Sure, but when do you call time of death? (It's a rhetorical question) I guess I'm happy to grant the author a little artistic license to make his point.

The author has some freedom to choose how to define death in this case, yes. But then he should include the definition he used. Otherwise it's just fear mongering.

Re: Obituary: Great Barrier Reef

#35

Post by pantalaimon »

adrianN wrote: post #31
lucozade wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if we (quickly) invent some tech that cleans up the atmosphere and oceans Unfortunately this is based on the same logic that says re-writing from scratch is optimal as there's no bugs in code you haven't written yet. As unhelpful as this may be, I would characterise our current state of knowledge as: we know enough about how our planet works to know that our planet's climate is changing largely due to our activity.…

I think bringing CO2 down to pre-industrial times would be a pretty save bet. If we had a source of massive CO2-free power we could extract CO2 from the atmosphere and turn it back into coal, effectively unburning all the coal and oil that we burned so far. Technology that tries to undo climate change without that is what's risky.

> If we had a source of massive CO2-free power we could extract CO2 from the atmosphere and turn it back into coal, effectively unburning all the coal and oil that we burned so far.

aka photosynthesis

Re: Obituary: Great Barrier Reef

#36

Post by jsingleton »

adrianN wrote: post #31
lucozade wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if we (quickly) invent some tech that cleans up the atmosphere and oceans Unfortunately this is based on the same logic that says re-writing from scratch is optimal as there's no bugs in code you haven't written yet. As unhelpful as this may be, I would characterise our current state of knowledge as: we know enough about how our planet works to know that our planet's climate is changing largely due to our activity.…

I think bringing CO2 down to pre-industrial times would be a pretty save bet. If we had a source of massive CO2-free power we could extract CO2 from the atmosphere and turn it back into coal, effectively unburning all the coal and oil that we burned so far. Technology that tries to undo climate change without that is what's risky.

We already have this technology, burning biomass with CCS [^0] as just one example. Synthesising methane with solar/wind energy, burning it and feeding the exhaust into greenhouses to grow crops as another. It just needs deploying at scale.

This is not a technology problem. It is a political/economic problem. And it can be solved given the will.

[^0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage

Re: Obituary: Great Barrier Reef

#37

Post by femto »

Also covered this week on Catalyst, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's weekly science magazine show. Catalyst agrees with this article: the news ain't good. Prof. Terry Hughes, Director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies seemed especially pessimistic. Catalyst's website has an extended interview with him.

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/4553792.htm

Re: Obituary: Great Barrier Reef

#38

Post by jsingleton »

The modern reef is relatively recent (thousands of years) and has been land during human history. There are aboriginal stories that recount when it rapidly flooded at the end of the last ice age, which may be more than just legends. This fate could await many of our coastal cities given the thermal expansion of the oceans (let alone if a large land-based ice sheet melts).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Barrier_Reef#Geology_and...

Re: Obituary: Great Barrier Reef

#39

Post by mathattack »

jsingleton wrote: post #38

The modern reef is relatively recent (thousands of years) and has been land during human history. There are aboriginal stories that recount when it rapidly flooded at the end of the last ice age, which may be more than just legends. This fate could await many of our coastal cities given the thermal expansion of the oceans (let alone if a large land-based ice sheet melts). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Barrier_R…

More than just legends. In the last ice age, people could walk much of what it now the Pacific Ocean.

Re: Obituary: Great Barrier Reef

#40

Post by coldpie »

kodroid wrote: post #14

Ignoring the errors in the article, what can we do? Due to the selfishness and shortsightedness of our race, I think the only way we are not totally screwed is if we (quickly) invent some tech that cleans up the atmosphere and oceans - not an easy task!

If you're in the US, you can be sure to vote for politicians that acknowledge that global warming is happening this November. It's not much, but it's a start.

Hint: Such politicians will not have an R next to their name. Denying climate change is part of their core platform: https://prod-static-ngop-pbl.s3.amazonaws.com/static/home/da...

Post reply on HN