Live data from Hacker News

We Just Breached the 410 PPM Threshold for CO2

scientificamerican.com

91–100 of 264 posts

Re: We Just Breached the 410 PPM Threshold for CO2

#91
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.

There is an interesting set of choices to make if you switch gears. You can work to reduce impact, reduce existing, or survive change.

If you want to focus reducing impact then for CO2 there are many sources for it in developing nations. The US EPA (quick, archive it before it goes away!) lists these for the US[1]; Electricity (35%), Transportation (32%), Industry (15%), Residential & Commercial (10%), and others at 7%. Any endeavor which is cutting into transportation or electricity generation specifically will be most impactful but there are places like better LED lighting for business (reduce commercial electricity consumption). Pretty well plowed but they can always use the help.

To act on reducing the existing gas levels perhaps the best place will be sequestration exercises. Generally it helps to have a Chemistry background here because many of the sequestration techniques consist of converting CO2 vapor into something that holds on to the Carbon. There are more mechanical solutions (pumping gas into mines) and there are biological solutions (growing plants rapidly and then burying them) as well. From a software perspective I would imagine the biggest use would be control systems software as these are essentially industrial processes that folks are trying to automate.

Finally if you're looking at living with it, then there things like modelling immersion maps for the coastal areas and helping cities plan to migrate to higher land. There are efforts to design more weather tolerant living structures to survive larger and more sustained weather events, and storage and recycling systems to maximize the use of local resources which may become scarce in a different climate.

[1] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases#c...

Re: We Just Breached the 410 PPM Threshold for CO2

#92
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Increasing CO2 does not necessarily result in more plants. The feedback cycles are complex and there are other limiting factors. Imagine, for example, if the oxygen concentration was increasing instead. Would you expect humans to multiply faster and reach a new equilibrium because of it? Concentrations have indeed been much higher in the deep past. The concern isn't destroying all life, it's damaging or destroying ci…

Most plants use the C3 fixation cycle and are relatively CO2 limited. Maize uses the more efficient C4 fixation cycle.

this is interesting- where can I read more?

Re: We Just Breached the 410 PPM Threshold for CO2

#93

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…

Please have a look at the following (copied from a recent comment of mine):

Most recent study of methane flux/storage in the ESAS:

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/373/2052/2014...

Arctic temperatures are estimated to rise 1.9x compared to global average:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005GL025244/full

During HCO the arctic is estimated to have been 4-6C warmer than baseline (yearly average):

https://epic.awi.de/38441/1/Beierlein_2015_Holocene_page1.pd...

That's not all that much. We're now already at 400ppm CO2, and recent unmitigated projections to 2100 (538ppm) simulate an arctic yearly average of ~ plus 8C:

http://climatenewsnetwork.net/arctic-is-set-to-reach-13c-by-...

So, are you willing to play the russian roulette game with the arctic methane? The PETM boundary showed a global average warming of 5C, mostly from arctic methane at a time where there wasn't even a large ice shelf, so with significantly lower capacity:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene–Eocene_Thermal_Maxim...

That would be in addition to the CO2 induced warming, mind you. That should make it quite easy to see how we're likely triggering a rapid warming to +8C (global average) or above. Rapid means it could come within a single decade since methane is that potent.

At that point, vast amounts of land on earth becomes uninhabitable from the heat aspect alone, never mind food production - you'll have mass migrations that top anything human history has ever seen. I suggest reading up on history as well, especially the late bronze age collapse which seems very interesting in its modern relevance.

Re: We Just Breached the 410 PPM Threshold for CO2

#94
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.

You might want to work on a way to make a convincing argument to the general public. Because the echo chamber here notwithstanding, where I live nobody really believes there is a climate problem, or at best they give it lip service while they drive their new Escalade to Starbucks for a $5 cup of coffee.

I think that in reality we will not see people changing behaviors unless and until there are real observable climate changes that are affecting their lives. And even then I have my doubts.

Re: We Just Breached the 410 PPM Threshold for CO2

#95

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…

> I don't know much about climate science ... I'm just skeptical that the rising CO2 level is as dangerous as it's made out to be. Respectfully, is this a mindset you apply to other aspects of your life? Let's say you leased an apartment in a large building, and after an inspection, numerous structural engineers said the building was in danger of collapse. Would you say "I don't know much about engineering, but I'm s…

Respectfully, do you know more about climate science than shouldbworking?

Re: We Just Breached the 410 PPM Threshold for CO2

#96
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't know much about climate science ... I'm just skeptical that the rising CO2 level is as dangerous as it's made out to be. Respectfully, is this a mindset you apply to other aspects of your life? Let's say you leased an apartment in a large building, and after an inspection, numerous structural engineers said the building was in danger of collapse. Would you say "I don't know much about engineering, but I'm s…

Those structural engineers benefit from the millions of repeatable experiments in engineering over the past few centuries. It is an extremely well understood subject. Climate science, by comparison, has no repeatable experiments on the scale of a planetary atmosphere and is in its infancy. No-one knows with certainty the impact of 400ppm vs 410ppm so they have to rely on speculative models, so it's right to treat cli…

While it's undeniable that structural engineering has been around longer than climate science, scepticism should be based on performance, not simply the age of the field. The mainstream (IPCC) models have quite accurately forecasted global temperatures and sea levels over the past couple decades.

While climate science is a constant exercise in refinement (as all science should be), it's not a bunch of wild-ass guesses.

I don't know of anyone who claims there is anything specifically meaningful about 400 vs 410pmm, it is simply a new record.

Re: We Just Breached the 410 PPM Threshold for CO2

#97
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…

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.

[deleted]

Re: We Just Breached the 410 PPM Threshold for CO2

#98

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.

Those "people" are already over-saturated on things like "facts".

You can't appeal to everyone.

Re: We Just Breached the 410 PPM Threshold for CO2

#99
post #7

in plain english (from article): "Right now we’re on track to create a climate unseen in 50 million years by mid-century."

The states hit hardest by climate change are the ones cheerleading the burning of more fossil fuels. It's utterly bizarre.

Re: We Just Breached the 410 PPM Threshold for CO2

#100
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't know much about climate science ... I'm just skeptical that the rising CO2 level is as dangerous as it's made out to be. Respectfully, is this a mindset you apply to other aspects of your life? Let's say you leased an apartment in a large building, and after an inspection, numerous structural engineers said the building was in danger of collapse. Would you say "I don't know much about engineering, but I'm s…

Let's say you leased an apartment in a large building, and after an inspection, numerous structural engineers said the building was in danger of collapse. Would you say "I don't know much about engineering, but I'm skeptical it's that bad", or would you demand the building management take steps to correct the issues? I like this analogy because it highlights the wrongheadedness of climate change denial. There is a ke…

While this is certainly true, it's unfortunate that we can't even have a productive conversation about this issue because we're apparently still stuck on disagreement over scientific consensus.
Post reply on HN