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

The Uninhabitable Earth

nymag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 252 posts

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#161

Post by Houshalter »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #141

the climate window that has allowed for human life is very narrow, even by the standards of planetary history I remember when I was little, reading the Carl Sagan Cosmos book. It was based on the TV show, and had this really interesting section where it had pictures of what will happen on earth as the sun expands to a Red Giant [1]. That really stuck with me and ever since, it's clear to me that we humans live in a t…

Sometimes a big enough difference in quantity is a difference in quality. The difference between Earth surviving a 100 years or a billion is pretty significant. I can't even imagine how large a billion years is - it's just a mind bogglingly huge number. But my grand children will be around in a century - I might even be if medical technology improves or cryonics works. So it would be nice if the Earth is still in a nice state by then.

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#162

Post by [deleted] »

tastyfreeze wrote: post #115
chiefofgxbxl wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why I'm so concerned about the trend that SUV sales are outpacing Sedan sales. Whereas sedans used to be the "default" car a decade ago, SUVs are now taking their place [0]. All things being equal, a smaller car (sedan) should get better MPG than a larger car (SUV) [1]. And yet it seems that people's efforts to reduce their environmental footprint is focused on recycling a plastic cup here and there [2]. A ve…

At least around here if you ask people why they, as the only person in the vehicle, drive something so big many will answer, "so, I win". The idea being that in an accident the larger vehicle will provide more protection. Soon we will all be driving semi-tractors just so we can "win" against the largest vehicles on the road.

[deleted]

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#163

Post by joloka »

cageface wrote: post #74
joloka wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article also claims that a rise in kidney disease in El Salvador is related to global warming without offering any evidence whatsoever. Correlation is not causation, right? I think that one specious claim undermines the entire article, quite frankly. El Salvador is a nation with all kinds of social problems including a population that is under-educated (to say the least) so I find it hard to believe that heat is…

If you Google search on the El Salvador claim there seems to be a lot of other articles backing it up, like this one: http://www.theage.com.au/good-weekend/climate-change-and-kid...

Nope, not a shred of evidence there, either. Just conjecture.

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#164

Post by AndrewKemendo »

Houshalter wrote: post #161
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #141

the climate window that has allowed for human life is very narrow, even by the standards of planetary history I remember when I was little, reading the Carl Sagan Cosmos book. It was based on the TV show, and had this really interesting section where it had pictures of what will happen on earth as the sun expands to a Red Giant [1]. That really stuck with me and ever since, it's clear to me that we humans live in a t…

Sometimes a big enough difference in quantity is a difference in quality. The difference between Earth surviving a 100 years or a billion is pretty significant. I can't even imagine how large a billion years is - it's just a mind bogglingly huge number. But my grand children will be around in a century - I might even be if medical technology improves or cryonics works. So it would be nice if the Earth is still in a n…

Yes well, the earth isn't going to be uniformly uninhabitable in anything like the near future.

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#165

Post by iak8god »

Daishiman wrote: post #88
grondilu wrote: post #43

If you feel like watching more hopeful content on the subject, there is Allan Savory's TED talk about how to stop desertification[1], and Freeman Dyson's speech called "heretic thoughts about science and society"[2]. Basically, those speakers suggest climate change is an issue that can be solved with better land management . Soil is extremely good at absorbing Carbon Dioxide. Isn't it why there is so little CO2 in th…

Hope without plans is useless. Hope is not a strategy. This is pretty much just prayer, and a grain of sand in the vastness of problems caused by climate change. Nothing to do with solving permafrost thawing, nothing do with solving the heat shock created by extreme climates, no solutions for ocean acidification.

> Hope without plans is useless.

So is despair. Reversing desertification will sink tons of CO2 back into the ground.

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#166

Post by justin66 »

buckbova wrote: post #104
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #38

This is an article to save and come back 20 years and read.

And in 20 years there'll be a whole new set of doomsday predictions and this'll be forgotten. https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&q=earth%20day%20do...

Well, that's one way to bring up a bunch of sketchy information sources on a Google search result page.

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#167

Post by _rpd »

antisthenes wrote: post #157
_rpd wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This level of impairment conflicts with data from military studies, for example ... > CO2 at 40,000 ppm for 2 weeks did not affect performance on multiple tests of cognitive function in physically fit young airmen https://www.nap.edu/read/11170/chapter/5#54 but it is something certainly worth further investigation.

> Twenty-four volunteers, ages 18-23, were selected for their motivation and their excellent health. If only we were all 18-23 years old in excellent health. The amount of abuse sustained and the speed of recovery my 20 year old self could sustain compared to my 30 year old self is truly astonishing. When you're young, your body can compensate in a myriad ways you aren't even thinking about, that obviously weren't me…

Here's the LBNL study behind the article claims for comparison ...

https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1104789/

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#168

Post by gorkonsine »

sanxiyn wrote: post #108
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #68

A few observations: Trying to scare people into behavior does not work very well. The Catholic Church spent centuries threatening people with eternal hell if they had extra-marital sex, and people still had extra-marital sex. Studies have shown that abstinence only sex education results in more teen pregnancies. Thomas Malthus saw an impending famine and begged people to have fewer children. People did not listen. Wh…

I strongly support nuclear power, and although I kind of understand their points of view, I can't stop thinking those opposing nuclear power is not serious about climate change.

>I can't stop thinking those opposing nuclear power is not serious about climate change.

They mostly are I think, they're just completely ignorant and naive and unrealistic about all the solutions. The strongly anti-nuclear people (esp. those a decade ago and longer) seem to really think that everyone's going to suddenly stop driving cars and start walking and biking everywhere.

However, that said, it's getting more and more realistic to forgo nuclear power while still reducing greenhouse gas emissions, thanks to renewables, especially solar power. PV power is getting cheaper all the time, and Germany for instance produces a large fraction of their power with it despite Germany not being an especially sunny country. So it's getting more and more realistic to oppose nuclear power while still supporting policies to reduce climate change, and not be completely naive and ignorant as in the past. The main problem with solar is storage, due to its transient generation nature.

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#169

Post by gasbag »

chiefofgxbxl wrote: post #84
latch wrote: post #15

It's pretty hopeless. I used to think we'd adjust in time, but that was when the decline looked more linear (or at least I thought it looked more linear). Of the many people who I know who are seriously concerned re climate change, I'd say 2 have taken truly meaningful steps . It's not the handful of climate change deniers that's the problem. It's the overwhelming number of people who want to say they're green, but s…

This is why I'm so concerned about the trend that SUV sales are outpacing Sedan sales. Whereas sedans used to be the "default" car a decade ago, SUVs are now taking their place [0]. All things being equal, a smaller car (sedan) should get better MPG than a larger car (SUV) [1]. And yet it seems that people's efforts to reduce their environmental footprint is focused on recycling a plastic cup here and there [2]. A ve…

> A pollution tax would certainly help but is far too big of a thing to accomplish in the short-term.

There's no need for a big car tax or a pollution tax. We could just end the massive fuel subsidies we have in the US. Of course that is also unlikely to be accomplished in the short term.

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#170

Post by gorkonsine »

dmm wrote: post #103
state_machine wrote: post #93

I did not realize the physiological effects would be as severe: > The fraction of carbon dioxide is growing: It just crossed 400 parts per million, and high-end estimates extrapolating from current trends suggest it will hit 1,000 ppm by 2100. At that concentration, compared to the air we breathe now, human cognitive ability declines by 21 percent.

My father certifies hospital gas systems in the US. He's measured CO2 levels in urban areas around 498ppm. Hospital air, the air piped to patients, has a limit of 500ppm. Soon hospitals will have to put CO2 scrubbers on their air supplies just like astronauts. Maybe head mounted CO2 scrubbers will become fashion accessories for the 1%.

How is CO2 a problem in breathable air? To humans, it's a harmless and inert gas, just like nitrogen. The real problem is too little O2, which humans require for respiration. Obviously, too much CO2 could displace O2 and reduce O2 levels, but it's not the CO2 that's an actual problem (i.e., if the CO2 displaced only N2, and O2 levels stayed the same, you wouldn't have a problem).

So having a CO2 scrubber doesn't seem to make any sense to me, you need something that keeps the O2 levels up. That may be a CO2 scrubber (pulling the carbon atom off the CO2), or it may be more feasible to just carry an oxygen bottle as many elderly people do today. I suspect the latter is the case; if it were feasible to have a portable CO2 scrubber to improve your O2 levels, they would have done it already for all these people.

Post reply on HN