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

131–140 of 264 posts

Re: We Just Breached the 410 PPM Threshold for CO2

#131

Post by 35bge57dtjku »

shouldbworking wrote: post #67
hyperbovine wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I take his point about predictions not factoring in any sort of human mitigation, though. It's pretty obvious to me that inventing ways to fight or even reverse global warming (basically, geoengineering) is going to become the defining scientific and industrial challenge of our (grand-)childrens' era. Think solid-state electronics or genomics but on an entirely larger, more urgent scale. Pretty much the only thing ke…

Someone else in the thread mentioned releasing sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere to cause global cooling. To me, the notion of getting the entire planet to reduce their CO2 production is laughable. People are still sold as slaves and dying of starvation in some parts of the world. If global warming becomes a threat to humanity the only realistic solution is technological. It sounds like we already have the tech nee…

So because someone simply mentioned using a single chemical to cool the atmosphere, you assume that it would work and that it would work at a large enough scale to fix everything? That sounds like a textbook case of believing everything you hear.

Re: We Just Breached the 410 PPM Threshold for CO2

#132

Post by pvnick »

philipkglass wrote: post #111
pvnick wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Stopping -- let alone reversing -- climate change is orders of magnitude more difficult than that. It involves the coordination of billions of people in a task that goes against their short-term, individual interest. It is also extremely dangerous. Most folks engaging in the climate change debate are implicitly doing a cost-benefit analysis of action vs non-action (action implying governmental action). Non-action m…

I really wish that "climate change denial" were a strawman -- that everyone accepted the basic mechanisms and effects of AGW and just argued over the best policy responses. Kind of like how American politicians all agree that North Korea has nuclear weapons and just differ in their policy responses. There's some of that in the political debate around AGW -- some people might e.g. promote nuclear power while others fa…

NK having or not having nuclear weapons is a binary choice.

AGW is multivariate. If temperature is rising, how much do we expect it to continue rising? If rising temperatures are due at least in part to CO2 emissions, then to what degree? How do we choose between the various complex climate models (indeed part of the reason we were so ill-prepared for Hurricane Katrina was that nobody considered the model that predicted the trajectory it ended up taking)? Are rising temperatures invariably bad? What if higher temperatures and CO2 increase forestation? Or maybe it increases biodiversity of harmful things, like diseases? Or maybe it decreases those things? Do CO2 emissions affect weather patterns? How so? Do we get more hurricanes? Do emissions affect water availability? How about acid rain? etc.

Re: We Just Breached the 410 PPM Threshold for CO2

#133

Post by tossaway33 »

epistasis wrote: post #123
gooserock wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 It's easy. - Stop flying. - Eat less meat. - Buy less stuff. - Use less energy.

This is not a personal responsibility problem, it's a societal priority problem. Living "virtuously" only changes your own impact. We need to change impact globally. We need to make jets that run on biofuels or synthetic fuels. We need to change our energy systems to be carbon neutral. We need to help the developing start using carbon neutral technologies directly, without going through a fossil fuel phase. These are…

be the change you want to see in the world

Re: We Just Breached the 410 PPM Threshold for CO2

#134

Post by dirtyaura »

bjelkeman-again wrote: post #65
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.

I co-founded a SaaS data startup ten years ago, focused on international development. Most of our work is currently climate mitigation related (water, agriculture, poverty reduction) but also used in sustainable energy, like tracking small scale biogas production. The whole international development field is a USD 130 Bn/year industry, and there may be another USD 100 Bn coming in climate mitigation/renewables. They…

How did you contact customers, learn more about the field? Did you have prior experience in the field?

Re: We Just Breached the 410 PPM Threshold for CO2

#135

Post by bhickey »

robbiemitchell wrote: post #129
ams6110 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 climat…

For the Conservative crowd, we need to characterize renewable energy as energy independence.

And carbon taxes as reducing regulation.

Re: We Just Breached the 410 PPM Threshold for CO2

#136

Post by skwirl »

ams6110 wrote: post #94
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.

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 climat…

I don't think complaining about people buying $5 cups of coffee at Starbucks is helpful for making a convincing argument. When you make statements like that, you give people the impression that your true motive is to attack capitalism and that raising environmental concerns are simply an underhanded tactic to do so. I understand your point about driving, but the brand of coffee and the cost is irrelevant and complaining about it is counterproductive.

There's no reason we can't address climate change and have $5 cups of coffee at Starbucks (although I prefer $2 cups of coffee at Dunkin Donuts).

Re: We Just Breached the 410 PPM Threshold for CO2

#137

Post by mikeash »

mchannon wrote: post #83
hartator wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but my point is that lack of O2 is very easy to explain why it's bad of the health!

Silly point. O2 shortages are irrelevant- 210,000ppm to 209,800ppm O2 is far less of concern than 300ppm to 400ppm CO2.

And keep in mind that atmospheric pressure (and thus the partial pressure of oxygen) routinely varies by 10% or more due to weather, and people live at altitudes where the pressure is as low as 50% below sea level.

Re: We Just Breached the 410 PPM Threshold for CO2

#138

Post by mikeash »

pvnick wrote: post #102
chongli wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Stopping -- let alone reversing -- climate change is orders of magnitude more difficult than that. It involves the coordination of billions of people in a task that goes against their short-term, individual interest. It is also extremely dangerous. Most folks engaging in the climate change debate are implicitly doing a cost-benefit analysis of action vs non-action (action implying governmental action). Non-action m…

It's not a strawman. There are a frightening number of people who believe the issue is not at all complex, and that the whole thing is a lie made up by their political opponents.

If you can believe his words (doubtful), the current President of the US is one of these.

Re: We Just Breached the 410 PPM Threshold for CO2

#139

Post by yongjik »

pvnick wrote: post #132
philipkglass wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really wish that "climate change denial" were a strawman -- that everyone accepted the basic mechanisms and effects of AGW and just argued over the best policy responses. Kind of like how American politicians all agree that North Korea has nuclear weapons and just differ in their policy responses. There's some of that in the political debate around AGW -- some people might e.g. promote nuclear power while others fa…

NK having or not having nuclear weapons is a binary choice. AGW is multivariate. If temperature is rising, how much do we expect it to continue rising? If rising temperatures are due at least in part to CO2 emissions, then to what degree? How do we choose between the various complex climate models (indeed part of the reason we were so ill-prepared for Hurricane Katrina was that nobody considered the model that predic…

In the context of "Is AGW happening", your argument is not an honest argument, but an attempt to ask a thousand questions and try to drown the argument in the perception of uncertainty. In other words, FUD.

But let me try to answer them as best as I can.

> If temperature is rising, how much do we expect it to continue rising?

It will keep rising as long as we keep generating CO2.

> If rising temperatures are due at least in part to CO2 emissions, then to what degree?

Stop the "if", "at least", and "in part". Rising temperatures are due to man-made CO2, period. Other causes are rounding errors.

> How do we choose between the various complex climate models (indeed part of the reason we were so ill-prepared for Hurricane Katrina was that nobody considered the model that predicted the trajectory it ended up taking)?

You mean those that say the sea level would rise 50 cm, 1 m, and 2.5 m?

You don't have to know future trajectory of hurricanes in order to build a hotel in Miami. You just assume that a hurricane will hit it at some point in the future and plan for it.

> Are rising temperatures invariably bad?

Non sequitur. Of course it's not invariably bad. Some people made a fortune with the dot-com bubble, 2008 housing crisis, invasion on Iraq, you name it. The Earth has 7 billion people: basically no disaster will be invariably bad for all of them.

> What if higher temperatures and CO2 increase forestation?

...and?

> Or maybe it increases biodiversity of harmful things, like diseases?

Tropical diseases will most likely spread further, so yes.

> Or maybe it decreases those things?

I can't see how, but if that happens, well good. There must be at least a few positive effects of climate change. (E.g., the opening of the arctic shipping route.)

> Do CO2 emissions affect weather patterns?

Well sure.

> How so?

We're still figuring this out, I'm afraid.

> Do we get more hurricanes?

Probably.

> Do emissions affect water availability?

Yes. Google "receding glaciers".

> How about acid rain?

...how about acid rain what?

I'm surprised that you think "NK having or not having nuclear weapons" is a binary choice, after all. Does it have uranium or plutonium? How much? Is it reliable? Where can it be delivered? Would China back up NK or not? Is it invariably bad? What if it acts as a deterrent against regional war? Does it affect economy of North or South Korea? Does it affect the politics of South Korea? Will we get more military conflict or less? What about Japan?

Re: We Just Breached the 410 PPM Threshold for CO2

#140

Post by alphapapa »

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?

It's actual scientists saying this.

> On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

--Stephen Schneider in APS News, Aug/Sep 1996, p. 5 [0]

Note especially: "So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

He necessarily implies that one must be dishonest in order to be "effective." This raises the question: effective at what? The answer is obvious: effecting their policy goals.

This raises other questions: If a policy goal requires dishonesty to garner public support, is it a worthy goal? Is it backed by sound reasoning and evidence?

Most importantly, why should the public trust such sweeping policy to a few people who have decided that they know better than everyone else, and are therefore entitled to lie to the uneducated masses, for their own good? Is that not authoritarian? Does not madness lie down this path, or are climate scientists immune to lapses in judgment and ethics and morals?

0: http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/199608/upload/aug96....

Post reply on HN