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

171–180 of 252 posts

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#171

Post by Caveman_Coder »

cagenut wrote: post #28
dota_fanatic wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kind of drastic change should one take? Not having kids, OK, drastic but doable. Cutting out meat, driving less, etc, OK. But what about the rest of the production chain that assumes you're the same as everyone else (whom continues to use and depend on that production chain), which is an ocean of waste compared to what any single person can do? We can individually push the needle very slightly, but it does nothi…

The energy consumption (and therefore carbon emissions) per capita in the west/US comes almost entirely from the feedback loop between single-family-detached housing and the car-or-two it takes to live in that kind of sprawled out lifestyle. Put another way, Transportation and Housing (heating & cooling) are the #1 and #2 sources of carbon emissions for suburban, exurban and rural dwellers. People who simply live in…

>"People who insist on having a yard and several feet of air-gap between them and their neighbors are the real climate change deniers."

Why are we the climate change deniers? What about those of us with yards that are completely edible and green and don't require our food to be hauled in from across the country? I don't think the issue is as cut-and-dry as you make it sound. I'd also recommend you look into the agricultural and food supply chain for these large dense cities.

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#172

Post by yongjik »

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…

> So whenever climate action comes up I ask: What is the end state that you are seeking? Is the goal to permanently solidify an undefined homeostasis? For what group? Are you trying to make northern Africa green again?

That's all philosophical and nice, but it's just like asking everyone in the lower Mississippi basin "So what is the end game here? The river has changed its courses throughout geological history. Are we trying to lock it up in an artificial stasis?" And we could save billions of dollars spent on trying to artificially keep the river from flooding half of Arkansas.

Somehow I don't think they would appreciate my wisdom.

(In fact, it's actually worse; at least we don't have a "water industry" increasing the flow of the Mississippi every year and saying "But water is essential for life!")

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#173

Post by fulafel »

gorkonsine wrote: post #168
sanxiyn wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Long time nuclear opponents advocating renewables were right in hindsight: If all the post WWII nuclear R&D resources had been spent on renewables instead of military derived reactor designs, we would have had cost effective renewables for years now.

Instead, nuclear is still not commercially competitive, having swallowed globally untold amounts of tax money away from other research.

The latest gen reactor projects are very pyrrhic victories for nonfossil energy.

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#174

Post by joloka »

Oletros wrote: post #126
joloka wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything described by the fearmongers has to do with too much human activity. How is that not related to nearly 8 billion people on earth?

Fearmongers? > Everything described by the fearmongers has to do with too much human activity Then should read better, because it is not the case. Or perhaps you can give us links to those "fearmongers". And by fearmongers youre not talking about climate scientists, isn't?

Yes, the article is blatant fear mongering. Every time a climate issue comes up it mentions human activity as the cause of all our problems. Outside of a Hail Mary technological solution, there is only one way to reduce human activity and that is to have fewer humans.

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#175

Post by fulafel »

gorkonsine wrote: post #170
dmm wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It is harmful in large concentrations as it displaces oxygen (cf. dry ice pool accidents).

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#176

Post by AndrewKemendo »

yongjik wrote: post #172
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…

> So whenever climate action comes up I ask: What is the end state that you are seeking? Is the goal to permanently solidify an undefined homeostasis? For what group? Are you trying to make northern Africa green again? That's all philosophical and nice, but it's just like asking everyone in the lower Mississippi basin "So what is the end game here? The river has changed its courses throughout geological history. Are…

I grew up in Houston and for part of my life, we lived in a flood plane. From 2001-2008 our house flooded three times during Alison, Rita, and Ike. I moved out in 2002. I told my mom, maybe at a certain point you take the hint and move. So she did in 2010 right before the county expanded the Bayou system to that area.

So yea, migration should be considered a standard part of life.

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#177

Post by Bartweiss »

gorkonsine wrote: post #170
dmm wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This relies on several common misconceptions.

Earth's atmosphere is only about 0.03% carbon dioxide. CO2 levels high enough to cause catastrophic global warming still wouldn't displace enough oxygen to matter to humans - it would be a smaller change than a few thousand feet of elevation, which is entirely safe.

The second issue: CO2 is not inert in the human body. It's not used for any crucial reactions, but it's more relevant to us than N2 (largely inert at STP, not while diving) and vastly more reactive than He. That's why divers commonly use Trimix (O2, N2, He), and deep divers use Heliox (O2, He). CO2 is present in solution in your bloodstream at all times, partly as an output of chemical reactions and partly absorbed from the air.

Among other roles, CO2 levels are detected in human lungs - high CO2, not low O2, is what makes you feel the burning "need to breath" sensation. That's why hyperventilating is a common cause of shallow-water blackouts - it lowers blood CO2 levels more than it increases O2 levels, allowing you to run out of air without feeling it.

There's some data suggesting that elevated CO2 levels cause cognitive impairment, which can become quite serious. There's other data (e.g. from nuclear submarines) showing that humans can tolerate CO2 with minimal effect. No one has reconciled this neatly, but it's definitely not true that O2 displacement is the problem.

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#178

Post by Bartweiss »

fulafel wrote: post #175
gorkonsine wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It is harmful in large concentrations as it displaces oxygen (cf. dry ice pool accidents).

True, and dangerous; this even happens naturally when volcanos displace oxygen and create lethal stretches of depressed ground. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazuku)

But not the issue here. CO2 is a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, and apocalyptic global warming happens well before O2 displacement becomes an issue. Bear in mind that humans can function effectively up to several thousand meters - the O2 loss from low pressure is vastly larger than any possible CO2 displacement.

If CO2 is going to have physiological effects via the atmosphere, it's based on chronic exposure and high blood concentrations. There are some studies suggesting that causes cognitive harm, and others suggesting it doesn't.

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#179

Post by gorkonsine »

Daishiman wrote: post #96
hacknat wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's the overwhelming number of people who want to say they're green, but still own two cars, never take public transport, eat meat daily, live in big houses, and buy buy buy. The car and the "buy, buy, buy" are the only real problems. Cut those two out and the big houses and meat aren't a big deal (or are at least workeable). Probably the biggest thing you could do to help the environment is not buy any kind of mo…

Home heating and meat consumption are the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases. The creation of the mobile device is peanuts in comparison.

>Home heating and meat consumption are the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases.

What? Citation needed. That's complete BS. See here:

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...

The #1 cause of greenhouse gases is electricity production. #2 is transportation (cars, trucks, planes, ships, trains).

Commercial and residential (including home heating) is only 12%, and agriculture is only 9%.

You're right about mobile devices being peanuts though.

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#180

Post by Bartweiss »

vram22 wrote: post #54
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…

Re. reversing desertification: Came across this technique - imprinting - recently - seems interesting: Imprinting soils – Creating Instant Edge for Large Scale Revegetation of Barren Lands: 1) https://permaculturenews.org/2012/09/19/imprinting-soils-cre... Excerpt: [ Imprinting is a method for instantly adding what permaculturists call the ‘edge effect’ to soils, utilising a heavy and dimpled/wedged roller to ‘imprin…

Woah, that's very interesting.

It's pretty well-established that analyzing land based on gross regional characteristics is a disaster for reasons like these - the relevance of a given patch of soil to erosion resistance or vegetation support can change massively over miles or even yards. Sometimes protecting 100 acres of exposed, average land is less useful than protecting a single acre of liminal ground that holds back stream or wind erosion, or helps to germinate the next 'stage' of vegetation.

What's totally new to me is the idea of going out and making seminal land like this. Finding it is hard, protecting it is harder, but making it? There's an idea that could actually be compatible with the sort of bulk-analysis development governments are capable of.

This seems to at least have the potential to really matter, and be far more usable than most grand environmental schemes.

Post reply on HN