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

Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

nationalobserver.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 522 posts

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#291

Post by tajen »

rimliu wrote: post #159
tajen wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand your point, you're saying the scientific consensus is that we're not going to die, but I see a scientific consensus that keeps alerting us: Tornadoes are already here and we believe they're more frequent because of GW. Epidemics are often quoted as a consequence of a warmer, more welcoming climate, along with the decay of bees, hence the famines. NYC is expected to be flooded several times before 2…

> we believe they're more frequent because of GW No, we actually still not sure about this.

The consensus is, we're sure. Doubts on the details shouldn't slow us from acting anyway.

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#292

Post by Oletros »

sanxiyn wrote: post #278
Rexxar wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- since CO2 has a logarithmic effect on warming Where does this affirmation come from ?

Eh, this is actually well known. "The existing concentrations of a particular gas dictate the effect that additional molecules of that gas can have. For gases such as the halocarbons, where the naturally occurring concentrations are zero or very small, their forcing is close to linear in concentration for present-day concentrations. Gases such as methane and nitrous oxide are present in such quantities that significa…

The question should be why the OP made this observation regarding the other claims he made

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#293

Post by joelthelion »

mirimir wrote: post #287
delegate wrote: post #145

The message I"m getting is not that I have to prepare for something or change energy sources , it's that "our lifestyle is killing the planet much faster than we thought". CO2 levels is just one of a myriad of indicators that are off the scale now. By lifestyle I mean supermarkets and restaurants and iPhones and planes ... all the stuff that we're so proud of as a society. Winning, getting ahead, being number one, ou…

Look, we're not "killing the planet". Humans are organisms like any other. Sure, human populations have spiked from millions to billions in recent millennia, and mean per capita resource utilization has increased dramatically. But that's just what organisms do. So anyway, the planet will be fine. Human civilization may collapse, given the risk of crop failure and war. But even humanity will survive. Edit: Many other…

That's true, but it's also not very relevant.

Many asteroids and barren planets are also going to be fine, but I don't think anyone cares about that. People care about the future of human civilization, which is very much at risk.

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#294

Post by joelthelion »

JackdawX wrote: post #240
pjc50 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too expensive, too slow. We're having this conversation with Hinkley Point C in the UK. It's going to get subsidised more than wind power and it's going to take a decade to build. If you start building reactors now, then in a decade you end up with a bunch of eternal liabilities that are more expensive than renewables+storage will likely be by then.

Most renewables are not reliable power sources, the wind blows when it blows. That is why a diverse power strategy is needed, including nuclear. When you say the amount subsidised, what is your source, and what do you mean by 'more'? Do you mean more in total, or per kwh generated?

So maybe we should reduce energy use, now, instead of contemplating vague solutions decades into the future.

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#295

Post by ptaipale »

yjgyhj wrote: post #112
yodsanklai wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally agree. But is this an issue in Sweden? I thought most of your electricity was from renewable energy already.

It's 45% nuclear and 45% hydro [0] according to Dagens Nyheter, an old and reliable news paper. [0] - http://www.dn.se/ekonomi/vattenkraft-och-karnkraft-ger-sveri...

Or Wikipedia, which has similar numbers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Sweden

Note that this is the production. Consumption is a bit different because Nordic countries share the electricity market and the grids are connected. Consumption could use hydroelectric from Norway or wind from Denmark or nuclear from Finland, or from Russia via Finland.

For a picture of the market just now, look: http://www.statnett.no/en/market-and-operations/data-from-th...

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#296

Post by likelynew »

d_theorist wrote: post #279
mikelyons wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't trees the ultimate carbon-capture devices? They are solar powered, turn co2 into building materials, and require very little maintenance.

Not really. There's something called the "Forest Carbon Cycle". Forests do not statically capture carbon long term. They are constantly taking carbon in but also releasing it through the death of trees and through the soil. Trees can temporarily capture carbon, but ultimately it will be released again unless they are burned. They also take up a lot of space. [EDIT] I should probably clarify that I have nothing agains…

> Unless they are burned

Won't burning the tress will change the stored carbon in the tree to carbon dioxide?

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#297

Post by mirimir »

joelthelion wrote: post #293
mirimir wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look, we're not "killing the planet". Humans are organisms like any other. Sure, human populations have spiked from millions to billions in recent millennia, and mean per capita resource utilization has increased dramatically. But that's just what organisms do. So anyway, the planet will be fine. Human civilization may collapse, given the risk of crop failure and war. But even humanity will survive. Edit: Many other…

That's true, but it's also not very relevant. Many asteroids and barren planets are also going to be fine, but I don't think anyone cares about that. People care about the future of human civilization, which is very much at risk.

Yes, but that's very different from "killing the planet". If what you care about is the future of human civilization, then that's what you ought to be talking about. Bringing up "killing the planet" just invites eye rolls.

Personally, I care more about the future of consciousness than about the future of humanity, per se.

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#298

Post by pantalaimon »

Touche wrote: post #267
delegate wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the ONLY reason you can say this crap is simply because people competed ... and be pretentious and ungrateful about what society have achieved so far. Even though you're grossly exaggerating what I've said in the comment, I'm still going to answer with a rhetorical question: What good is all that shit if the price for that is the suffering and death of our children and eventual end of our species ? This is what the…

I think you're looking at the world's history with rose-colored glasses. World poverty is at the lowest levels today than it has been in recorded history: https://ourworldindata.org/slides/world-poverty/#/declining-... I think you'd be hard pressed to find a time in history when life was better than it is today. And if you did find one, it would be so long ago than population levels were a fragment of what they are n…

> I think you'd be hard pressed to find a time in history when life was better than it is today.

That's nice and dandy but what good is it if we can only sustain that maybe another 50 years if we're lucky?

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#299

Post by ptaipale »

JshWright wrote: post #261
fsloth wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had no idea such a gag rule existed. Does this affect distribution of contraceptives in some twisted way as well?

Of course it does. Many organization that provide contraception also provide abortion services, and therefore are ineligible for funding.

Though if you really wanted, you could provide contraception without providing abortion services (it's a policy that these two are often combined, not logistical or economic or any other necessity.)

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#300

Post by vitro »

adrianN wrote: post #272
imgabe wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trade-off: Humanity as a species ends. Which gadget do you feel is worth that?

Humanity as a species won't end due to climate change. That's a ridiculous assertion. Full scale nuclear war probably couldn't wipe us out completely. Global warming can't either. Billions might die, but humanity will survive almost certainly.

If there is no air to breathe?
Post reply on HN