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

201–210 of 264 posts

Re: We Just Breached the 410 PPM Threshold for CO2

#201

Post by snowwrestler »

PakG1 wrote: post #198
mark-r wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the Earth will be just fine after us humans have ceased to exist. As humans I think we should be concerned just a little.

Let's be honest. Climate science also needs to decide if it will be anthropocentric or not. As harsh as it sounds, if science is not supposed to be anthropocentric, then it doesn't matter to science if humanity becomes extinct or suffers. By definition. So if climate science is going to make human suffering or survival the key important issue, it should completely discard any language that it's about the earth and en…

Science is the process of learning how the universe works. It is not anthropocentric.

What we choose to do with that knowledge is anthropocentric because we are humans.

Science can tell us how fire works. We still have to decide what to do when our house catches on fire.

Re: We Just Breached the 410 PPM Threshold for CO2

#202

Post by snowwrestler »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #197
mark-r wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, we'll be safe from the direct effects of CO2 increases. But the indirect effects could be much more severe. That's the interesting part of the problem, we don't have accurate models of all the side effects. Ecosystems are complicated and fragile.

"But the indirect effects could be much more severe." Or they could make things better. "That's the interesting part of the problem, we don't have accurate models of all the side effects." In fact, we do know that the CO2 level of the earth's atmosphere has been much higher in the past, and that this didn't produce anything like the "all life on earth dies" scenario that the doomsayers keep touting. "Ecosystems are c…

The ecosystem did not survive the Chicxulub event.

"Ecosystem" is not shorthand for "life exists on Earth somewhere." An ecosystem is a particular state of the dependencies between life forms.

The ecosystem that existed before the big asteroid strike was thoroughly and rapidly destroyed; a new ecosystem developed afterward. That's fine from a general "life finds a way" perspective, but it sucked for the sauropods, who went extinct.

EDIT: if you want a sense of why the indirect effects of anthropogenic climate change might be bad, look at the social unrest reacting to a couple million people migrating out of Syria. What do you think it's going to be like when about a billion people have to migrate inland due to sea level rise?

Re: We Just Breached the 410 PPM Threshold for CO2

#203

Post by Frondo »

yongjik wrote: post #34
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 have to admire the audacity of people arguing "The Earth has been hotter several million years ago," as if that's relevant at all. If a storm cuts off gas, electricity, water, internet, and paved road access to these people, and the government says "What's the problem? People have been living without them for most of history!", these same people would cry bloody murder (as anybody else would).

In the 2016 election cycle, the libertarian candidate Gary Johnson gave a great answer to an interview question.

Someone asked him about climate change, and his reply was (quoting from memory, so forgive me if I get the wording slightly off): "As I understand it, in 11 billion years, the sun will expand and swallow the earth, making the issue of climate change moot."

Well, that's great because it's both true and absolutely nonsensical. And it's a great way to do absolutely nothing, policy-wise, for any problem. "What about police violence?" "As I understand it, in 11 billion years..." "What's your position on the student loan debt crisis?" "As I understand it, in 11 billion years..."

Re: We Just Breached the 410 PPM Threshold for CO2

#204

Post by jaredklewis »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #91
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.

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…

Interesting. Do you think there is a role for tech in things like preventing further deforestation of existing natural environment?

Re: We Just Breached the 410 PPM Threshold for CO2

#205

Post by bonzini »

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…

Sulphur dioxide causes acid rains. This used to be a huge problem in Europe even, and stopping the burning of coal in Germany has more or less solved it. I wouldn't be so eager to release SO2 in the atmosphere.

Re: We Just Breached the 410 PPM Threshold for CO2

#206

Post by burke »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #187
Turing_Machine wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Millions of years" is an eyeblink in the history of the earth. In fact, the CO2 level has been much higher than this level in the past (like, orders of magnitude higher). The earth was fine. And no, this isn't the era of the "highest disappearance of species". Not even close. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event

Modding stuff down doesn't actually change the facts, you know. CO2 levels: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html The sources are all linked from this site. Note that the CO2 level in the Cambrian was around 7,000 ppm, or about 17 times the level that this article is having hysterics about. Note that even during the Jurassic (when there were plenty of large land animals and a flourishing ecosys…

* A CO2 level of 7kppm is not compatible with human flourishing.

* Consensus is that the elevated CO2 levels of the Ordovician-Silurian and Jurassic-Cretaceous periods came on over tens or hundreds of thousands of years, not mere tens or hundreds. This gave life a chance to adapt.

* Previous mass extinctions have been caused by things like complete ocean ecosystem collapse and massive asteroid impacts. Despite the fact that most of our current loss of biodiversity is mostly related to our homogenization of our surroundings, and not primarily climate change, it is certainly noteworthy and a little horrifying that it's reached a scale that comparison is meaningful.

People talking about worrying about the Earth are just using synechdoche to refer to humanity as we know it. I wish everyone would quit painting a strawman over this. The Earth will obviously be fine; I don't think any reasonable person will argue this point. Humanity's future is somewhat less clear.

Re: We Just Breached the 410 PPM Threshold for CO2

#207

Post by shouldbworking »

35bge57dtjku wrote: post #131
shouldbworking wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's well known that large volcanic eruptions have caused global cooling for a few years that's severe enough to lower the temperature of earths surface several degrees.

I don't think anyone can deny that it's possible to cool the Earth by putting stuff in the upper atmosphere because we've already seen it happen during recorded history.

Re: We Just Breached the 410 PPM Threshold for CO2

#208

Post by shouldbworking »

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…

I'm not arguing about higher sea level, temperatures, or CO2 levels. I fully believe that all of these are going up.

I think it's unrealistic to believe we can get the whole planet to reduce CO2 emission, so we should stop spending so much effort on it and find other solutions.

I also doubt how much rising sea level will actually hurt humanity. Even in the worst case scenario were talking about an inch or two a year. This is slow enough to easily build a wall, dredge to raise up land, or move buildings away from rising waters. Besides, who puts buildings five feet above the water? The vast majority of buildings would just flood more often. It's not like buildings on the coast don't already get hit by cyclones.

Re: We Just Breached the 410 PPM Threshold for CO2

#209

Post by EGreg »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #178
EGreg wrote: post #161

Show this to any conservative who claims that global warming has nothing to do with human activity. I guess it's just a giant coincidence that we live in the time of the highest CO2 concentration in millions of years? And the highest disappearance of species?

"Millions of years" is an eyeblink in the history of the earth. In fact, the CO2 level has been much higher than this level in the past (like, orders of magnitude higher). The earth was fine. And no, this isn't the era of the "highest disappearance of species". Not even close. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event

Regardless of all this, it's pretty clear what's causing this currently buildup of CO2. So why deny that man's activity is a major factor?

As for "the earth will be fine": yes the planet will still be here, but will humans survive this? In the past, these changes were far more gradual, letting life adapt.

As for "not even close", please show me a period when the rate of extinction was higher: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene

Re: We Just Breached the 410 PPM Threshold for CO2

#210

Post by IanCal »

mygo wrote: post #188
alphapapa wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know how you expect me to take you seriously with "lolwut." But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt once. > The Republicans shamelessly flaunt their positions and policies. What is the point of this statement? Do you mean to say that Democrats don't do that? Or is it okay that they do, because you agree with them? In which case it's entirely hypocritical to say that, criticizing your opponents for doing ex…

> If I, as a citizen, register as a member of Party A, and vote in their primaries for candidates that lean toward my preferences--and then, come election time, go to the polls and vote for the candidate of Party B, as I intended to from the beginning--am I participating honestly in the political process? Or am I pretending to be a member of Party A so I can influence Party A to reduce the difference between the part…

Did they fully intend to vote democrat before they voted in the republican primaries?

The key point here is that the description has someone voting in party A's primaries for the sole reason of limiting or altering the choice others get to make. "As I intended to do from the beginning" is a key part of the description.

You however are describing I think people voting in the primaries to try and get the candidate they want to vote for into power. When that fails they take a different approach.

Post reply on HN