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

NASA Scientists Suggest We’ve Been Underestimating Sea Level Rise

motherboard.vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 247 posts

Re: NASA Scientists Suggest We’ve Been Underestimating Sea Level Rise

#91

Post by SomeStupidPoint »

refurb wrote: post #78
SomeStupidPoint wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I... uh. Firstly, the number cited was ~10 times the CO2 output per capita, not ~16. Secondly, it doesn't follow that GDP production in a primarily high tech, services, IP based economy should track the CO2 behavior of a different sort of economy. It's entirely possible that we're producing far and away more GDP and wasting CO2 production needlessly. (In fact, out GDP multiplier is 1.6 times higher than our CO2 multi…

I think you might be over estimating how much of the US economy is IP based or high tech. Google tells me 6.7M people work in tech out of 127M people with a full time job. Roughly 4%? Sure, the GDP per worker is higher, but suffice to say most of the GDP output of the US isn't due to sexy new low CO2 jobs. Edit: Tech is ~7% of US GDP.

My numbers are based around the idea that the US has a 1.6/20.8/77.6 Agriculture/Industry/Services breakdown, while India has a 17/29.7/45 breakdown, and that 40% of the US GDP doesn't seem to depend in any way on things that would produce much CO2 (compared to say, heavy industry) -- real estate (not construction), finance, health care, information, entertainment, corporate governance and education. (That's not counting another 15% unspecified government spending, which likely includes a substantial amount of non-CO2-producing expenses, likely pushing that number up to about 50% GDP.)

Similarly, industry-volume-for-industry-volume, the US should be more efficient in production, meaning that it should use lower CO2 even with the same level of industry.

Which is what we see: the US does use less CO2 to produce more GDP, precisely contrary to what the argument supposes (that they're exactly correlated).

I'm not saying that the US does make poor use of its CO2 emissions, merely that the argument I was responding to failed to show either direction -- the argument it made was fundamentally unrelated.

Ed: To put math on it -- the US is somewhere between about as efficient as India and less efficient than India, depending on how exactly that 40% aligns with actual CO2 production and how closely that 15% aligns with CO2 production. In the case of the 40%, the US is within rounding of not wasteful. In the case of 50%, the US is somewhat less efficient and probably is wasting CO2 production.

The problem with your analysis is that a) it was simply wrong about the numbers, and had a 1:1 CO2:GDP relationship, when the numbers don't bear that out (and hence didn't account for my objection) and b) it supposes a fact about comparing CO2 production to GDP that isn't true, because the composition of economies varies substantially.

I wasn't saying you were wrong. I was saying your argument was bullshit.

Re: NASA Scientists Suggest We’ve Been Underestimating Sea Level Rise

#92

Post by baddox »

mattstreet wrote: post #10
trentnix wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whatever it is, you can be certain that the solution is massive taxation and central control by bureaucrats.

People have had 50 years to start solving the problem on their own.

So have all the world's governments. That's not a very strong argument.

Re: NASA Scientists Suggest We’ve Been Underestimating Sea Level Rise

#93

Post by pavanred »

refurb wrote: post #58
pavanred wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Population(Billions): US 0.3 - 1.2 India CO2 emissions per capita(metric tons): US 16.4 - 1.6 India [0] I see numbers like this, and I am surprised that in 2016, in the face of evidence and danger, we still have arguments like I will not do anything because you didn't do enough according to me. Let it all burn down. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...

The reason why the US is ~16 times higher in CO2 output is.... the US produces ~15 times more by GDP (2.45T vs. 0.17 T). It's not like American's are just sitting there burning coal for the fun of it. It's being used to make stuff.

I really wish we can think beyond nationality when we face a problem that is not going to see border lines.

> There is nothing we can do, as long China and India get a pass, 3.2 billion people in 2 country doing nothing.

This is what the OP said. I honestly don't get it, then why is India's (and China's) responsibility for climate change dragged in whenever the topic of climate change is brought up. Is it because, as you mentioned India has ~16 times less CO2 emissions (per capita, but still way less than US) and ~15 times less GDP?

Isn't there a fair responsibility to spearhead dealing with climate change problem when you are polluting more and have more resources to deal with the problem. While India and China, having their own problems are making efforts in this direction and US is still dealing with denial, conveniently.

Re: NASA Scientists Suggest We’ve Been Underestimating Sea Level Rise

#94

Post by nylsaar »

fsloth wrote: post #89
trentnix wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whatever it is, you can be certain that the solution is massive taxation and central control by bureaucrats.

Don't you think this is a bit too serious issues to waste energy on petty political divisions? Anyway, they only entities that can do something are governments. People are good at locally optimizing their own lives. Not so good at optimizing the good of the whole.

Where did the water for the ice come from? What is the optimal sea level for the governments to set? How do you calculate an energy output without knowing it's environment? Why do scientist, who are dependent on government funding, use words like 'suggest', 'surprised', or 'consensus'?

The truth is that none of us know what the actual dimensions of our solar system were 5,000 years ago, nor do we know the measurements in the next 1,000.

An object is never the same when nature is applied over time.

Re: NASA Scientists Suggest We’ve Been Underestimating Sea Level Rise

#95

Post by flukus »

michaelbuddy wrote: post #90
StanislavPetrov wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ice is 90% more reflective. Melting sea ice turns the oceans into giant heat sinks and accelerates warming.

Except the most "reflective" areas get the least amount of sun per year anyway.

They also get it 24/7 for a good chunk of the year.

Re: NASA Scientists Suggest We’ve Been Underestimating Sea Level Rise

#96

Post by godmodus »

Eadrax wrote: post #15

There is nothing we can do, as long China and India get a pass, 3.2 billion people in 2 country doing nothing. Even if the US disappeared off the face of the map, its still to late. I say let it happen, it will propel us into a new era off innovation and environmental awareness. No one is going to take it seriously until its to late anyway .

it is actually in the west's hands, where most tycoons and climate change deniers reside.

Re: NASA Scientists Suggest We’ve Been Underestimating Sea Level Rise

#97

Post by dagss »

refurb wrote: post #58
pavanred wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Population(Billions): US 0.3 - 1.2 India CO2 emissions per capita(metric tons): US 16.4 - 1.6 India [0] I see numbers like this, and I am surprised that in 2016, in the face of evidence and danger, we still have arguments like I will not do anything because you didn't do enough according to me. Let it all burn down. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...

The reason why the US is ~16 times higher in CO2 output is.... the US produces ~15 times more by GDP (2.45T vs. 0.17 T). It's not like American's are just sitting there burning coal for the fun of it. It's being used to make stuff.

How does "making stuff" make it any better? Making (and consuming) stuff is the problem we are talking about. One needs to stop making stuff.

Re: NASA Scientists Suggest We’ve Been Underestimating Sea Level Rise

#98

Post by raz32dust »

Eadrax wrote: post #15

There is nothing we can do, as long China and India get a pass, 3.2 billion people in 2 country doing nothing. Even if the US disappeared off the face of the map, its still to late. I say let it happen, it will propel us into a new era off innovation and environmental awareness. No one is going to take it seriously until its to late anyway .

(a) China and India are doing the best they can, as highlighted by several links in this thread. I don't know where you get this information that China and India are "doing nothing". Please share your source. (b) "I say let it happen", "No one is going to take it seriously until its to late anyway ". Do you see the irony?

Do you have any number to show that developed nations cannot put a dent on global warming? Whatever I could gather in 5 minutes points otherwise [1]. Even if you believe so, they can still help by: (i) Using their technical expertise and money in helping developing countries develop and deploy green technology. (ii) They are the consumers of most of the manufacturing output. They can set stricter rules on ecological impact of produced goods. They can set local laws that will not allow companies to buy from polluting industries.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...

Re: NASA Scientists Suggest We’ve Been Underestimating Sea Level Rise

#100

Post by Qantourisc »

XaYdEk wrote: post #37
meric wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're building solar power plants everywhere, shutting down factories and coal power plants around large cities. "Other main targets include: – reduction of emissions from coal burning industries and vehicles2 – boost cleaner and more efficient use of coal – promote the use of electricity and natural gas in place of coal – support for wind, solar and bio power sectors; increase in proportion of clean energy – encou…

Solar and wind based energy production is not going to fully or even mostly replace our gas/coal burners because they lack constant and predictable outputs. Also, we have neither infrastructure for storing power at this level, nor would it be economically feasible. Hydro and geo-thermal are better sources in this sense, but neither are abundant and have their own drawbacks. '- promote the use of electricity and natur…

"lack constant and predictable" We can solve this with batteries, which we have so far not been able to succeed in to do at large scales. There has been some small scale success with liquid batteries, using cheapish elements. Which in theory is feasible to scale up.
Post reply on HN