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

231–240 of 264 posts

Re: We Just Breached the 410 PPM Threshold for CO2

#231

Post by nojvek »

snowwrestler wrote: post #199
alphapapa wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to be clear, you're advocating dishonesty and deception--essentially, infiltration, a tactic used in espionage. This lies in stark contrast to the idea that progress comes by openly researching, and debating, and convincing one's opponents with reasoned arguments and evidence. If you have to deceive people to win, are you really "on the right side"? Or is everyone else just so stupid that you have no choice? You…

There is nothing deceptive about trying to take over a political party. It is in fact exactly how political parties work. The Tea Party accomplished a partial takeover of the GOP in 2010, and Bernie Sanders is working on the Democrats still. Political parties belong to whoever tries the hardest to run them.

I envision DNA scientists be able to produce a much efficient plankton/ trees.

Trees are only 2-4% efficient at converting solar energy. What if we discovered the secret of chlorophyll and we're to be able to make trees 10x more efficient.

Trees that trap co2 and heat and give us hydrocarbon rich oil, hydrogen, water and oxygen.

Suppose we could improve tree efficiency 20x, those trees would also grow fast. We'd be able to control the thickness so we get lumber ready trees for building. The trees would possibly be with dark and make some sort of flat canopy trapping sunlight efficiently.

I have hope that we'll discover this secrets and a future generation will invent something ground breaking

Re: We Just Breached the 410 PPM Threshold for CO2

#232

Post by epistasis »

tossaway33 wrote: post #133
epistasis wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The reason that works is that it shows others what is possible and what it is like, eventually converting others around you.

In the case of climate change, austerity living may actually be counterproductive towards convincing others.

The change we need in the world is both technology and attitude.

Re: We Just Breached the 410 PPM Threshold for CO2

#233

Post by mikeash »

IanCal wrote: post #210
mygo wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> for the sole reason of limiting or altering the choice others get to make.

Isn't that the only reason to vote in a primary? The whole point of a primary election is to choose who becomes your party's official candidate on the ballot for the general election, and the only reason to do that is because it limits or alters the choice that voters get to make.

If John Doe is running, and I want him to win, and I only care about my choice, I'd skip the primary and vote for him in the general. If he doesn't make it onto the ballot, I could write him in. If I vote for John Doe in the primary, it's because I want to affect other voters.

Re: We Just Breached the 410 PPM Threshold for CO2

#234

Post by ChuckMcM »

jaredklewis wrote: post #204
ChuckMcM wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Directly or indirectly? There are groups that use satellite data to analyze deforestation and identify countries that are not living up to treaty obligations, or within those countries identifying illegal deforestation activity[1]. However I suspect the 'tech' side of this is much less manpower intensive than the 'enforcement' side of this.

[1] https://www.wired.com/2015/04/using-smart-satellites-to-moni...

Re: We Just Breached the 410 PPM Threshold for CO2

#235

Post by titojankowski »

mbrookes wrote: post #217
titojankowski wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your question inspired a blog post! Climate Change 2.0, How to Hack Your Way In To The Climate Change Revolution http://titojankowski.com/climate-change-2-0-how-to-hack-your... If you find this topic interesting, join the Google group Climate Change 2.0: A Call to Adventure https://groups.google.com/forum/?nomobile=true#!forum/climat...

> How to Hack Your Way In To The Climate Change Revolution This is just a list of (mostly) ill-informed questions rather than "Thought-Provoking Climate Change 2.0 Ideas", and certainly don't answer acabal's question, or the address title of the post.

Thanks for the feedback! You're totally right it could be better with more relevant ideas and especially a connection to programming opportunities would be cool. Any ideas or thoughts that you'd add to a revision to be more relevant? It's a work in progress!

Re: We Just Breached the 410 PPM Threshold for CO2

#236

Post by snowwrestler »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #228
snowwrestler wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, wh…

By your definition "the ecosystem" never "survives", because it has been in a state of constant change since life first developed on earth. "What do you think it's going to be like when about a billion people have to migrate inland due to sea level rise?" Considering that even the worst-case doom-crying scenarios issued by the IPCC predict a sea level increase of the order of 1 meter over the period of a century (i.e…

Yes, ecosystems change constantly. An ecosystem is a state and the state changes as its components change.

The fact that this is news to you is a clue that perhaps you know less about this subject than you think you do.

Re: We Just Breached the 410 PPM Threshold for CO2

#237

Post by Turing_Machine »

snowwrestler wrote: post #236
Turing_Machine wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By your definition "the ecosystem" never "survives", because it has been in a state of constant change since life first developed on earth. "What do you think it's going to be like when about a billion people have to migrate inland due to sea level rise?" Considering that even the worst-case doom-crying scenarios issued by the IPCC predict a sea level increase of the order of 1 meter over the period of a century (i.e…

Yes, ecosystems change constantly. An ecosystem is a state and the state changes as its components change. The fact that this is news to you is a clue that perhaps you know less about this subject than you think you do.

Now you're just getting nasty, without any substantive response to my assertions.

Hint: that means I won.

You claimed that the ecosystem "didn't survive" the Chicxulub event because there were different organisms afterward. I pointed out that by that "definition" the ecosystem has never "survived", because it has been in a state of constant change since day one.

Rather than responding to this, you just got nasty.

I repeat: I win. Sorry.

Re: We Just Breached the 410 PPM Threshold for CO2

#238

Post by Turing_Machine »

EGreg wrote: post #209
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

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…

"As for "not even close", please show me a period when the rate of extinction was higher"

I provided a link. Here, let me link directly to the graph:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Extinction_intensity.svg

The so-called "Anthropocene" is at the extreme right of that chart.

Note that the extinction rate has been colossally higher not just once, but many times in the past.

Next.

Re: We Just Breached the 410 PPM Threshold for CO2

#239

Post by Turing_Machine »

EGreg wrote: post #229
akvadrako wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Historical temperature changes were often quite abrupt and of greater magnitude than our current one. 2. Life is anti-fragile, so I think you're really underestimating humans and animals in general if you think a few degrees is something we can't handle.

I think you need to prove both these assertions. They are quite startling responses to "we have produced a quick rise to the most CO2 in millions of years" or "we have seriously damaged the biodiversity of large animals on this planet". It's as if someone said "we set the entire rainforest ablaze" and someone said "Relax! Nothing to worry about, this happened a few times naturally in the history of the Earth." Can yo…

"The highest level in millions of years" is just rhetoric. The Earth is billions (with a b) years old.

Re: We Just Breached the 410 PPM Threshold for CO2

#240

Post by Turing_Machine »

snowwrestler wrote: post #199
alphapapa wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to be clear, you're advocating dishonesty and deception--essentially, infiltration, a tactic used in espionage. This lies in stark contrast to the idea that progress comes by openly researching, and debating, and convincing one's opponents with reasoned arguments and evidence. If you have to deceive people to win, are you really "on the right side"? Or is everyone else just so stupid that you have no choice? You…

There is nothing deceptive about trying to take over a political party. It is in fact exactly how political parties work. The Tea Party accomplished a partial takeover of the GOP in 2010, and Bernie Sanders is working on the Democrats still. Political parties belong to whoever tries the hardest to run them.

So you are admitting that this is politically rather than scientifically driven?

Okay then.

Post reply on HN