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

Scientists In Alaska Find Mammoth Amounts Of Carbon In The Warming Permafrost

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 305 posts

Re: Scientists In Alaska Find Mammoth Amounts Of Carbon In The Warming Permafrost

#291

Post by chc »

scarmig wrote: post #182
chc wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Lovecraftian" is still used as a general term for an entire genre of fiction. He was a xenophobe, but that is not what he's best known for. Similarly, Aristotle was a misogynist, but it would not be accurate to say that Aristotle is best known as a navel-gazing misogynist.

I think it's a bit more complicated than that. Lovecraft is fundamentally about confronting modernism and the inevitable decay of humanity in the faces of forces beyond our control. Central to that is the decay of the Anglo-Saxon genetic stock. Xenophobic isn't quite the right word. Racist is closer, but even that misses the mark. Every story he writes is terrified of black voodoo savages, or toothless white hill peo…

The story in question, At the Mountains of Madness, isn't about any of those things. It's about an Antarctic expedition that finds the ruins of an ancient civilization, which they gradually realize wasn't built by humans.

I do think you're right that Lovecraft's ability to write effective horror was largely because he himself was fascinated with terror at the world. But I don't think his weird xenophobia is what he ended up actually communicating to most readers or what he's famous for. He's more known for misshapen tentacle monsters and cosmic-scale horror. For example, Lauren Beukes' novel Broken Monsters is often considered Lovecraftian horror, and it has fairly modern sensibilities.

Re: Scientists In Alaska Find Mammoth Amounts Of Carbon In The Warming Permafrost

#292

Post by sulam »

freehunter wrote: post #278
ByThyGrace wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does "be with us" mean in the case of methane?

Methane turns into CO2 and water vapor over time as it reacts with other stuff in the air. It takes about 10 years for atmospheric methane to turn into something other than methane.

Yep. The caveat is that we are currently adding methane at a faster rate than it is lost through this process, which obviously means methane concentrations are increasing right now, and early signs are that this may accelerate. Sigh.

Re: Scientists In Alaska Find Mammoth Amounts Of Carbon In The Warming Permafrost

#293

Post by sulam »

maxxxxx wrote: post #209
sulam wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course the planet will be inhabitable. Will there be any of us to inhabit it? Or will war break out because of population migration due to the effects of climate change? I don't know the answer to the first question, but the second one is easy -- it's already happening.

These are important issues but I still doubt civilization will get destroyed. Let's warn of likely scenarios. These are bad enough. No need for exaggeration that then can easily be refuted.

Africa is undergoing a mass migration leading to local wars. The Middle East is subject to the same pressure. There’s plenty of evidence that this is directly leading to European immigration and the rise of nationalist movements. None of this is exaggerated — it is current reality.

Re: Scientists In Alaska Find Mammoth Amounts Of Carbon In The Warming Permafrost

#294

Post by sulam »

dredmorbius wrote: post #281
sulam wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before you get too happy about PETM, realize we are putting CO2 into the atmosphere at six times the peak PETM rate. We are in for a rough ride over the next several hundred years.

I'm not happy about either. The good news, if there is good news, is that the present rate of human induced CO2 injection is not likely to be continued for too much longer. Of course, it it induces further injections, things may get interesting.

I’m banking on carbon capture being the obvious solution. Environmentalists (I do not count myself in their number) are resisting this because they’re worried it will lead to an attitude of complaisancy about human emissions. My point of view is that we already are grossly under shooting targets that bake in massive effects we haven’t begun to properly appreciate. Add in factors we can’t control like the feedback loop described in the parent and it literally isn’t going matter if we drop emissions to zero tomorrow. Therefore we need to start investing in remediation and carbon capture is the obvious best bet. I’m to the point where I’m literally building the case and background to chase this myself. Tech has been financially good to me and I plan to spend the rest of whatever time I have on the planet trying to make sure the same opportunities exist in the future for others.

Re: Scientists In Alaska Find Mammoth Amounts Of Carbon In The Warming Permafrost

#295

Post by wiz21c »

sulam wrote: post #288
wiz21c wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I read the paragraph 55 of the article, I think that it tells a different story. Basically, it's 20-30 meters higher seas; a good part of it coming from tectonic stuff. And they also say that sea level increase appeared before warming.

The volume of the ocean basin is something that I haven’t been able to find data for one way or the other. The timeline is different — there is a lot of data and of course it doesn’t all line up perfectly. The generally accepted reference timeline, which is based on a single south Atlantic core sample, is calculated using an assumption about the annual rate of sediment deposition. There is evidence that mid ocean sed…

wow that's an answer ! I'm out of my league :-)

Re: Scientists In Alaska Find Mammoth Amounts Of Carbon In The Warming Permafrost

#297

Post by txsh »

throwawayjava wrote: post #229
txsh wrote: post #99

> In fact, there's more carbon in the permafrost, Douglas says, than all the carbon humans have spewed into the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution — first with steam trains, then with coal plants, cars and planes. > Scientists don't know yet how much carbon will get released from thawing permafrost or how fast it will happen. In a nutshell why not accepting anthropogenic global warming is scientific and accep…

It's also true that there's no DEFINITIVE ABSOLUTE PROOF that pressing the nuclear launch button will clause a MAD-style nuclear escalation. But still, there's good reason to believe it would , so it'd be irresponsible to push the button given other reasonable alternatives. "You can't ever know FOR SURE that this destroy life as we know it!" has to be the least logical form and most confusing of climate change skepti…

That has nothing to do with what I quoted from the article. It would benefit you to suppress your religious fervor for a few minutes and examine the facts for yourself.

Re: Scientists In Alaska Find Mammoth Amounts Of Carbon In The Warming Permafrost

#298

Post by michaelmrose »

mike741 wrote: post #177
michaelmrose wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Philosophical positions that you can't defend are mental masterbation without a payoff at the end. They aren't worth the time required to post them on this site.

Ok, but what about philosophical positions that CAN be defended? For example, your statement is a philosophical position in itself, no? A position, I assume, you believe to be "defensible?"

The answer to 2+2 has an infinite number of wrong answers. Finding the correct way to answer the question gives us a tool in our tool box that we can use to add any 2 numbers.

Through defensible positions even if we ultimately believe the conclusion is wrong we learn new ways to reason about life and the world around us. New tools to inform our interaction with the world or at least new thought processes to communicate with our fellow humans.

The bald statement that 2+2 = 17 or even that 2+2=4 is worth nothing if you can't explain why you think its correct.

Re: Scientists In Alaska Find Mammoth Amounts Of Carbon In The Warming Permafrost

#299

Post by michaelmrose »

taneq wrote: post #277
michaelmrose wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans prior to modern times haven't ever exceeded the carrying capacity of our environment and haven't had a die out that substantially reduced our population in modern times. Your thesis other than being fictional also is an emotional appeal to the concept that what is natural is desirable which is wholly unsound both on its face and because any die out sufficient to be effective is entirely likely to not only take…

I don't know what your cutoff for "substantial" reduction but the Black Death killed over 20% of all humans. Agree that "natural" is too often used as synonymous with "good" when our lives are far superior to what "natural" humans would experience.

Original poster "Such events are necessary to keep human population under a manageable number. Throughout human history there have been outbreaks that claimed many lives and stunted population growth for some time"

The black death was a singular public health crisis precipitated by sanitation not an example of the world population periodically resetting to a manageable level.

I am not unaware of the black death I just don't think it represents an example of what poster is arguing for.

Re: Scientists In Alaska Find Mammoth Amounts Of Carbon In The Warming Permafrost

#300

Post by dredmorbius »

sulam wrote: post #294
dredmorbius wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not happy about either. The good news, if there is good news, is that the present rate of human induced CO2 injection is not likely to be continued for too much longer. Of course, it it induces further injections, things may get interesting.

I’m banking on carbon capture being the obvious solution. Environmentalists (I do not count myself in their number) are resisting this because they’re worried it will lead to an attitude of complaisancy about human emissions. My point of view is that we already are grossly under shooting targets that bake in massive effects we haven’t begun to properly appreciate. Add in factors we can’t control like the feedback loo…

It is insanely expensive.

There are carbon-capture devices already extant. Solar-powered. Self-replicating. They're called "plants".

Problem is that 1) you've got to sequester the carbon formed, 2) there's only so much ag productivity (measured in terms of carbon fixation) on the planet, and 3) it is largely spoken for -- humans claim 40% of net primary productivity, the rest of the planet fights over the remaining 60%.

I'd strongly recommend you start sorting out what the environmentalists (or at least ecologists) have been doing for the past century or so. Their models strike me as vastly more sound than those who claim other affiliations.

BAU is not sustainable. The question is which of the other-than-usual tracks we select. Or allow to be selected for us.

Post reply on HN