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

71–80 of 104 posts

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

#71

Post by Retra »

throwaway9990 wrote: post #39
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…

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…

If you're not going to say anything, you could use fewer words to do so.

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

#72

Post by 35bge57dtjku »

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?

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_juice/2014/07/dri...

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

#73

Post by TeMPOraL »

Tharkun wrote: post #70
TeMPOraL wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As a community, HN seems to think nuclear energy is easy while carpooling or flying less are misguided wastes of effort. Yes, because it's the truth. Knowing that reflects understanding. It's orders of magnitude easier to design[0] a nuclear reactor than it is to get a meaningful number of people to voluntarily refrain from flying, or even driving cars. Getting lots of people to agree on something, especially when…

That's an interesting perspective, and one I hadn't considered before. I have to admit that it only fuels my fatalism. If people can't be convinced not to (e.g.) throw their trash out the window, then I can't help but despair.

I wish I could tell you otherwise; I sometimes try to believe it, but then I go outside to intermingle with the general population, and all of this is plainly visible.

Sometimes I wonder, who are those people who don't give a damn and just dump garbage wherever they please. I personally don't know any of them (or at least I don't know I know). But then I realize that current population levels mean we all live in our own filter bubbles. I did a back-of-the-napkin math recently and realized that personally, I've meaningfully interacted with at most 0.1% of people in the city I live in. In other words, I don't know a first thing about 99.9% of people I live next to. This probably explains why everyone seems so surprised come election days, or when they start discussing anything on a mainstream Internet portal.

All of this suggests civilization is a fragile thing, and the only structure and semblance of stability it has is thanks to systemic incentives (I wonder how our streets would look like if you couldn't be fined for littering). There's too many of us, we don't know one another, and we can't agree on shit, unless indirectly compelled by self-interest. I think the only way to achieve some large-scale coordination is to work on the incentives and the environment in which they apply, but that itself is a hard thing - especially that for any change you'd like to make, there will be those who profit off status quo and want to oppose you.

Really, designing a new nuclear reactor is trivial in comparison.

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

#74

Post by toomuchtodo »

thatcat wrote: post #67
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.

Flying is ocean pollution. By emitting that large amount of co2, you are disrupting the ocean co2 flux, reducing o2 available and causing acidification. The warming caused by the thermal capacity of the co2 melts the polar ice , cooling the oceans and reducing their salinity. Plastic is relatively a small problem.

Agreed, but air travel is only 5% of global emissions. There is much more low hanging fruit in electric vehicles and moving building HVAC to electricity (AC and heat pumps). Eliminate natural gas and fuel oil for heating, eliminate petroleum for moving people and goods around, and start feeding cows seaweed to reduce their methane emissions by 95%.

Air travel research has shown biofuels are production ready, but it’s not cost competitive yet, although that’s a market failure through the externalization of emission costs.

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

#75

Post by throwaway9990 »

Retra wrote: post #71
throwaway9990 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If you're not going to say anything, you could use fewer words to do so.

I'm not sure what you mean.

My point is we should stop worrying about the "environment", because what we really mean is for our great grandchildren to have the same environment as us.

I'm not sure if I'll have children. If I do, I'm not sure whether I'd want them to live in the same environment. I'm perfectly content living in a city where there are no animals for example.

Ultimately, if some other people on another continent decide to reproduce like crazy, it would kill all our current efforts with environment preservation and we won't be able to do anything about it.

So not only is it likely that it's impossible to stop these changes, but I wouldn't care if we stop them at all. To me it seems that the only reason anyone can possibly care about these things is geopolitics.

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

#76

Post by tonyedgecombe »

taf2 wrote: post #49
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".

Wait isn’t this what Tesla is helping solve? It’s why you should invest in them.

I can't help feeling you will have more impact investing in a bicycle.

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

#77

Post by toomuchtodo »

anothertwo wrote: post #69
the8472 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 could very well be possible.

Not only is it possible, the cost to do so will continue to decline as renewables deployed scale up. The cheaper electricity/renewables get, the cheaper it gets to sequester that excess CO2 back into the ground.

We need more renewables faster :/

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

#78

Post by guelo »

yodsanklai wrote: post #10
stingraycharles wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's partially related to something akin to the prisoner's dilemma: it's a world-wide problem, and "we" might not want to take the financial hit for being the first in leading the cause. I spent quite some time in South-East Asia the past few years, and when you see the sheer amount of boats that just dump all their trash in the ocean, and the sheer lack of awareness of the issue, it makes you hopeless. I com…

I share your feeling, but I also note this contradiction: > I spent quite some time in South-East Asia > I come home, diligently recycling my trash Not saying you shouldn't recycle your trash, but your flights are much more impactful for the environment than your trash.

In my perfect world air travel would be one of the few remaining uses for petroleum.

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

#79

Post by throwaway9990 »

jacquesm wrote: post #25
throwaway9990 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adaptations can happen within a decade. Look into radiotrophic fungi near Chernobyl.

Fungi are not a very good example of such adaptability when you are mainly talking about vertebrates.

http://nationalpost.com/news/world/proof-of-evolution-birds-...

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

#80

Post by throwaway9990 »

c0nducktr wrote: post #61
throwaway9990 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't really care if the "Earth is fine" if it's uninhabitable for humans.

I don't really understand this point.

Humans are going to die off at some point anyway. Why does it matter if it's 3 generations from now VS 300 VS 3000? You won't be there to see it.

Post reply on HN