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

We Just Breached the 410 PPM Threshold for CO2

scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 264 posts

Re: We Just Breached the 410 PPM Threshold for CO2

#71

Post by lurker456 »

ythn wrote: post #39
lurker456 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's akin to demanding that all engineers accurately predict which piece of the roof will collapse first, where the pieces will hit the floor, how many pieces it will break up into and on which date. The overwhelming consensus of experts is that its going to have an enormous impact. It's still worth studying when, how and where its effects will materialize first but that does not excuse inaction.

> The overwhelming consensus of experts is that its going to have an enormous impact. How soon? Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" predicted apocalyptic consequences in as few as 10 years. 10 years later and it turns out the documentary had tons of erroneous assumptions. Oops. > That's akin to demanding that all engineers accurately predict which piece of the roof will collapse first, where the pieces will hit the flo…

>How soon?

In a couple of lifetimes, which is still too soon, as reversing the trend will likely take far more effort. For a graphic description of how far we're venturing out of what we're used to as a species, see https://xkcd.com/1732/

> If your model has poor predictive power, it's not a complete model - for example whether a building will be able to withstand shear wind forces.

To continue with the analogy, we know the building can't withstand shear wind forces. We just don't know exactly how and where the pieces will land.

Re: We Just Breached the 410 PPM Threshold for CO2

#72

Post by cardamomo »

btdiehr wrote: post #45
cardamomo wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How we communicate climate science and its relevance to our world is just as important as the science itself. In my opinion, if labeling it a threshold in media intended for non-scientist audiences captures attention and calls readers to action, great! Frankly, we need to be "overexcited" about CO2 and stop sitting on our assess.

Let me get this straight, you're saying that people should purposefully mislead the public?

To be clear, I'm talking about this specific headline and trying to make a case for using the word "threshold" to capture attention. It's (mostly) a semantic issue. I do not advocate misstating scientific findings.

Re: We Just Breached the 410 PPM Threshold for CO2

#73

Post by semi-extrinsic »

cardamomo wrote: post #59
shouldbworking wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see your point. To me it's like numerous engineers are warning me that the temperature of the building is going up quickly. When I ask any of them what to do they say we should stop producing heat. I ask whats going to happen when the building gets hotter quickly and get 10 different answers. Somebody tells me the building has been much hotter in the past, but this is the fastest its heated up before. I ask if it's…

This is not an apt analogy. > I ask whats going to happen when the building gets hotter quickly and get 10 different answers. It shouldn't be surprising that there isn't one clear answer. Earth is a complex system, and it is changing in many ways right now. > I ask if it's actually even bad that the building is getting hotter quickly and everyone says "Of course it is! It's never heated up this fast before!" The pace…

> Not an option.

Actually, it is an option. Either we can take CO2 out of the atmosphere and put it back underground where it came from; or we could start doing climate engineering to increase the reflectivity of Earth (less sunlight in), using water vapor clouds at low altitude or aerosols at high altitude; or we could put up a big shade in space between us and the sun.

Are those expensive and difficult things? Definitely. But all of them are possible.

Re: We Just Breached the 410 PPM Threshold for CO2

#74

Post by davidp »

JshWright wrote: post #37
shouldbworking wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see your point. To me it's like numerous engineers are warning me that the temperature of the building is going up quickly. When I ask any of them what to do they say we should stop producing heat. I ask whats going to happen when the building gets hotter quickly and get 10 different answers. Somebody tells me the building has been much hotter in the past, but this is the fastest its heated up before. I ask if it's…

I think you're stretching the analogy a bit too far there... We know that increasing atmospheric levels of CO2 will result in higher temperatures (the mechanism is well understood, and the IPCC models have done a good job of predicting that over the past couple decades), we also know rising temperatures will result in rising sea levels (again, we have empirically observed this happening at rates consistent with our u…

Strategy tip: Don't tell him to know his place and listen to the enlightened; send him the next set of links that will satisfy and maybe further stimulate his curiosity.

Without those links, your last paragraph is really a statement about your own approach to the problem, with a little condescension thrown in for his failure to follow the same pattern. It's counterproductive to your own goal of persuasion.

In any scientific endeavor (not just climate change), when a skeptic takes the time to engage, the response should be data, not appeal to authority.

Put differently, environmental scientists have a credibility gap in some segments of the populace, and it isn't possible to fix any credibility gap through peer pressure. You can only offer evidence, tailored where possible to the listener's level of interest and sophistication.

Re: We Just Breached the 410 PPM Threshold for CO2

#75

Post by 0xcde4c3db »

shouldbworking wrote: post #4

I don't know much about climate science, but won't plants multiply and grow faster until we eventually hit a new equilibrium CO2 level? I guess the only danger is reaching thermal runaway before that happens? Then again, earth CO2 levels have been far higher in the past without signs that it killed off much life on Earth. Is rising CO2 that dangerous? Don't humans already have effective ways to reduce surface heating…

> won't plants multiply and grow faster until we eventually hit a new equilibrium CO2 level?

As I understand it, we increase production much faster than plants can increase consumption, since plants need other things to grow that we aren't pumping into the biosphere in ever-increasing amounts.

Re: We Just Breached the 410 PPM Threshold for CO2

#76

Post by m_mueller »

codecamper wrote: post #38
gjm11 wrote: post #12

This is very bad (albeit completely unsurprising) news, but I really don't see that the word "threshold" is appropriate. Is there some special bad thing that happens once 410ppm is reached, that's qualitatively different from 400ppm? Nope. The article itself is quite clear about this: e.g., it quotes one climate scientist as saying "These milestones are just numbers, but they give us an opportunity to pause and take…

Agreed. It's time to get very very excited here. Well if you only care about yourself, then screw it. If you have an ounce of care for the next generation or the ecosystems of the Earth, then it's time to start doing everything possible to replace our power generation with renewables (solar & wind) and our cars with electric cars. It won't cost all that much. Not doing it will cost a whole heck of a lot more.

Due to what's happening with Arctic methane I'm becoming more and more convinced that it won't just be the next generation's problem, it will be ours.

Re: We Just Breached the 410 PPM Threshold for CO2

#77

Post by cardamomo »

icelancer wrote: post #41
cardamomo wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How we communicate climate science and its relevance to our world is just as important as the science itself. In my opinion, if labeling it a threshold in media intended for non-scientist audiences captures attention and calls readers to action, great! Frankly, we need to be "overexcited" about CO2 and stop sitting on our assess.

This is how you end up overstimulating and oversaturating headlines and making people distrust science.

Point taken. I would add that fossil fuel companies and mainstream politicians are doing more to cause people to distrust science than headlines like this, however.

Re: We Just Breached the 410 PPM Threshold for CO2

#78

Post by riffic »

anigbrowl wrote: post #40
shouldbworking wrote: post #4

I don't know much about climate science, but won't plants multiply and grow faster until we eventually hit a new equilibrium CO2 level? I guess the only danger is reaching thermal runaway before that happens? Then again, earth CO2 levels have been far higher in the past without signs that it killed off much life on Earth. Is rising CO2 that dangerous? Don't humans already have effective ways to reduce surface heating…

On a species level we'll probably survive it, but that doesn't mean it won't be disastrous at the individual level. Suppose, for example, that a natural disaster reduces the human population by 50$ over a few decades. Humanity survives, but the deaths of 3-4 billion people would be pretty awful.

>On a species level we'll probably survive it

This is an arrogant assumption. Another assumption, one I find more realistic, is that we're driving full-speed towards the cliff.

Re: We Just Breached the 410 PPM Threshold for CO2

#79

Post by humanrebar »

codecamper wrote: post #38
gjm11 wrote: post #12

This is very bad (albeit completely unsurprising) news, but I really don't see that the word "threshold" is appropriate. Is there some special bad thing that happens once 410ppm is reached, that's qualitatively different from 400ppm? Nope. The article itself is quite clear about this: e.g., it quotes one climate scientist as saying "These milestones are just numbers, but they give us an opportunity to pause and take…

Agreed. It's time to get very very excited here. Well if you only care about yourself, then screw it. If you have an ounce of care for the next generation or the ecosystems of the Earth, then it's time to start doing everything possible to replace our power generation with renewables (solar & wind) and our cars with electric cars. It won't cost all that much. Not doing it will cost a whole heck of a lot more.

> It won't cost all that much. Not doing it will cost a whole heck of a lot more.

It's possible that it would change 3% year-over-year productivity growth to 0.5%. That "it" might be the difference between a marginally healthy economy and "lost generations" and political upheaval.

The "give us the flight controls now or regret it for eternity" position is not necessarily wrong, but there's a real lack of credible evidence with useful confidence intervals that any given combination of approaches will have net desirable outcomes. And there's a justified (I think) lack of trust in that approach.

The entire situation is dire, so why don't we see more of a "full court press" on responding to the effects of climate change as well? Investments into dikes and levees, building above sea level more aggressively, more aggressive weatherproofing, relocating populations from increasingly arid to increasingly temperate places, etc.?

People worldwide are clearly more and more cynical about centralized seats of power (Washington, Brussels, Davos, etc.), so why are we saying the solution to all this is more special interests (say, 'yes' to American batteries, 'no' to French nuclear tech), more regulation, and more bureaucracy?

Alternative plan:

If the problem is carbon in the air, just implement and gradually ramp up a (progressive) tax on that, provide a phased-in minimum income to offset general cost-of-living increases, and then just play with those knobs until emissions hit desirable levels.

Re: We Just Breached the 410 PPM Threshold for CO2

#80

Post by throwaway29292 »

Pulcinella wrote: post #49
acabal wrote: post #42

Does anyone have ideas on how a mid-career software developer can switch gears into the clean energy/climate change industry, to do something to help? I've come to think that climate change will be humanity's defining moment, and that we'll all be suffering greatly come mid-to-late-century. I want to do what I can to put my professional skills to use in helping. But I'm not sure where to even begin.

http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/

This is a good link. I particularly liked the ending paragraph about motivation - I think it's all network effect. If my friends and people I look upto were working on environmental engineering then maybe I too would jump into it. Unfortunately, none of my peers work in that area hence I spend time thinking about new buzzwords and technologies instead.
Post reply on HN