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

Ocean's Oxygen Starts Running Low (2016)

scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 104 posts

Re: Ocean's Oxygen Starts Running Low (2016)

#31

Post by throwaway9990 »

czechdeveloper wrote: post #19
throwaway9990 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Posting from a throwaway because politics. Wouldn't there also be more different fish now especially in places that used to be covered by ice? Sure, some species might die off but you might get more new species as well. Some new fish perhaps that is good at living in lower oxygen concentration. Also, the fish that lived in the tropics can move to subtropics and so on. I see it as more of a change that's not really ba…

This vastly underestimates human capacity to destroy earth, which is also reason why lost of people do not believe in climate change to begin with. If we go, all vertebrates go too. At least all cat and bigger sized. Life will survive, but I would not call if "fine". Is it still fine if it's only microscopic life? When it stops being fine?

Dinosaurs died off. Earth is fine.

I think unless we start blowing up Earth with nuclear weapons on purpose, it will be fine.

If humans are gone today, the CO2 levels will go back to normal pretty quickly with plenty of animals surviving all over the place.

Re: Ocean's Oxygen Starts Running Low (2016)

#32

Post by the8472 »

brohoolio wrote: post #24
swampthinker wrote: post #2

I hate this feeling of hopelessness regarding global warming. It feels like even if you were a billionaire/massive corp, at some point you would say "wow we should stop, or else there won't even be a world to spend this money in".

We fixed the ozone layer and stopped acid rain. We can fix this. It just takes commitment.

acid rain: stop emitting sulfur, it'll wash out of the atmosphere within years, forests will recover in decades

ozone layer: stop emitting CFCs, they'll decompose over decades and ozone concentrations will rise again

climate change: just stop emitting carbon and...

no wait, we're still locked into centuries of rising ocean levels and temperatures even if we lowered everything to zero right now.

It would take actively extracting CO2 from the atmosphere at very very large scale to reverse the effects.

Re: Ocean's Oxygen Starts Running Low (2016)

#33

Post by mehrdadn »

jacquesm wrote: post #18
throwaway9990 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Posting from a throwaway because politics. Wouldn't there also be more different fish now especially in places that used to be covered by ice? Sure, some species might die off but you might get more new species as well. Some new fish perhaps that is good at living in lower oxygen concentration. Also, the fish that lived in the tropics can move to subtropics and so on. I see it as more of a change that's not really ba…

It's George Carlin, not joe, and he was a commedian - a good one - not a scientist, and his point, in case you missed it was that humans won't necessarily be around for the earth healing part II. Earth will be fine, but we, you, me all the other humans, need earth to be healthy so that we can continue to exist, as apex predators we are extremely dependent on the lower branches of the foodchain working properly and al…

> as apex predators we are extremely dependent on the lower branches of the foodchain working properly

Would you mind elaborating on this? It's not clear to me how we would be less dependent on lower branches of the food chain if we weren't apex predators.

Re: Ocean's Oxygen Starts Running Low (2016)

#34

Post by jacquesm »

throwaway9990 wrote: post #31
czechdeveloper wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This vastly underestimates human capacity to destroy earth, which is also reason why lost of people do not believe in climate change to begin with. If we go, all vertebrates go too. At least all cat and bigger sized. Life will survive, but I would not call if "fine". Is it still fine if it's only microscopic life? When it stops being fine?

Dinosaurs died off. Earth is fine. I think unless we start blowing up Earth with nuclear weapons on purpose, it will be fine. If humans are gone today, the CO2 levels will go back to normal pretty quickly with plenty of animals surviving all over the place.

> Earth is fine

But dinosaurs clearly are not.

> I think unless we start blowing up Earth with nuclear weapons on purpose, it will be fine.

What you think is not so important. What the worlds scientists specialising in that field think is important. If you feel that short of nuclear global destruction our impact is negligible then that contradicts just about all peer reviewed research.

> If humans are gone today, the CO2 levels will go back to normal pretty quickly with plenty of animals surviving all over the place.

That does not align with my understanding of the word 'fine', but seems to imply a rather apocalyptic ending for the human race, something that we might do better to avoid.

Re: Ocean's Oxygen Starts Running Low (2016)

#35

Post by TeMPOraL »

throwaway9990 wrote: post #31
czechdeveloper wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This vastly underestimates human capacity to destroy earth, which is also reason why lost of people do not believe in climate change to begin with. If we go, all vertebrates go too. At least all cat and bigger sized. Life will survive, but I would not call if "fine". Is it still fine if it's only microscopic life? When it stops being fine?

Dinosaurs died off. Earth is fine. I think unless we start blowing up Earth with nuclear weapons on purpose, it will be fine. If humans are gone today, the CO2 levels will go back to normal pretty quickly with plenty of animals surviving all over the place.

The point is, nobody really gives a damn about Earth itself, and why should we? It's a rock.

What we care about is us, humans. When we say "save the planet", what we mean is "save the ecosystem that's letting us live here, and enjoy that life". If we break things and die as a result, sure, something else will live. But we don't care about that something else, we care about us.

It's a stupid shorthand, but for some reason people appreciate the fake humility of saying it's about Earth, not about us.

Re: Ocean's Oxygen Starts Running Low (2016)

#36

Post by bamboozled »

the8472 wrote: post #26
bamboozled wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is flying really that bad compared to ocean pollution? I feel like flying is overall a pretty efficient means of transport, everything is geared towards efficiency. Plastic in the oceans, now that’s a mess.

Consider a world where every human traveled by plane like you do and where also every human used recycling as you do. Would you prefer living in that world?

yes?

Re: Ocean's Oxygen Starts Running Low (2016)

#37

Post by dpwm »

jacquesm wrote: post #27
brohoolio wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We fixed the ozone layer and stopped acid rain. We can fix this. It just takes commitment.

And that commitment is exactly the problem.

It's more that such a commitment goes against the incentives laid down by a means of production that is enforced almost globally by both treaty and military might.

Re: Ocean's Oxygen Starts Running Low (2016)

#38

Post by worldsayshi »

throwaway9990 wrote: post #31
czechdeveloper wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This vastly underestimates human capacity to destroy earth, which is also reason why lost of people do not believe in climate change to begin with. If we go, all vertebrates go too. At least all cat and bigger sized. Life will survive, but I would not call if "fine". Is it still fine if it's only microscopic life? When it stops being fine?

Dinosaurs died off. Earth is fine. I think unless we start blowing up Earth with nuclear weapons on purpose, it will be fine. If humans are gone today, the CO2 levels will go back to normal pretty quickly with plenty of animals surviving all over the place.

> Earth will be fine

I'm so tired of hearing this empty phrase being used. Sure it was fun as a punchline but move along already. It's such a derailment of the discussion. It doesn't state what we mean by "earth" - is it the rock, the ecosystem, life itself? And it implies that the "earth" that is fine is the one that we actually should care about. I have no idea, because the way it's used is not really falsifiable and it's not really anything but a rhetorical trick.

Re: Ocean's Oxygen Starts Running Low (2016)

#39

Post by throwaway9990 »

jacquesm wrote: post #18
throwaway9990 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Posting from a throwaway because politics. Wouldn't there also be more different fish now especially in places that used to be covered by ice? Sure, some species might die off but you might get more new species as well. Some new fish perhaps that is good at living in lower oxygen concentration. Also, the fish that lived in the tropics can move to subtropics and so on. I see it as more of a change that's not really ba…

It's George Carlin, not joe, and he was a commedian - a good one - not a scientist, and his point, in case you missed it was that humans won't necessarily be around for the earth healing part II. Earth will be fine, but we, you, me all the other humans, need earth to be healthy so that we can continue to exist, as apex predators we are extremely dependent on the lower branches of the foodchain working properly and al…

I posted the clip because it's a lighthearted argument about the reasons we're pursuing environmentalism.

I think a lot of current hysteria it is driven by petroleum politics and geopolitics. Otherwise, both parties in US government would have been pro-environmentalism. Try to think of why someone might have a different position given that they understand the science.

Finally, regarding humans surviving. What is the ultimate number of humans that should exist on earth? How much environmental damage or "change" is allowed to sustain these humans or for "progress" to occur? How many children should humans be allowed to have? Who gets to decide these things? Should humans be allowed to develop new industries at the expense of the environment?

Some people think that it's best to live in tribes and forego all technology. Some are content living with current tech advancement and keeping population at about what it is now. Others think humans should spread to as many planets as possible.

Re: Ocean's Oxygen Starts Running Low (2016)

#40

Post by jacquesm »

mehrdadn wrote: post #33
jacquesm wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's George Carlin, not joe, and he was a commedian - a good one - not a scientist, and his point, in case you missed it was that humans won't necessarily be around for the earth healing part II. Earth will be fine, but we, you, me all the other humans, need earth to be healthy so that we can continue to exist, as apex predators we are extremely dependent on the lower branches of the foodchain working properly and al…

> as apex predators we are extremely dependent on the lower branches of the foodchain working properly Would you mind elaborating on this? It's not clear to me how we would be less dependent on lower branches of the food chain if we weren't apex predators.

The key is extremely. As an example, DDT sprayed to get rid of certain insects killed off a large number of birds at the top of the food chain, such trouble tends to concentrate. So poison the lower levels and the intermediate levels might survive but the apex species will suffer the most.
Post reply on HN