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

Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 210 posts

Re: Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change

#91

Post by netgusto »

lazysheepherd wrote: post #85
netgusto wrote: post #67

Why is this entry already on page 2 of HN? Seems a bit fast given the popularity and the fact that it was posted 2 hours ago (also, compared to those that are present on p1) -- edit: we're now on page 3 just 30 minutes after my comment.

I am on the watch and in last 5 minutes this submission got 6 new votes but have fallen 8 places! Before we attempt to solve climate crisis, first we should solve BIGOTRY CRISIS. I have seen this happening before too. Why does HN allows anonymous flagging? I bet anything if it were unanimous we would able to frame bigots who only flag because of their stupid personal world view. Has there been any efforts to make fla…

It definitely looks like people are pushing hard on this one.

Maybe they disagree with the article, but the tone of the comments does not frankly reflects this rejection.

Re: Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change

#92

Post by lazysheepherd »

androidgirl wrote: post #86

This is just a silly idea and doesn't fix all the problems, except heat. Could we position a sheet, or a carpet of asteroids in a Lagrange point around the Earth, or as a sort of reverse Dyson sphere? I heard that such a thing could be used to cool down Venus. That doesn't address the ocean acidification, or mass extinctions, etc. Certain high-light plants would also likely perish without intervention. Also, solar en…

Problem I see is not climate change really. Real problem is not that we have problems, but the fact that we create problems. Unless human society transform into a more reactive structure, we will generate new problems or stand short in reacting naturally generated ones.

And one of those problems will see the end of us if not climate change. It is much like playing Russian roulette in the risk of extinction. We just may avert the climate change but some next problem will be our bullet.

Re: Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change

#94

Post by neltnerb »

jerf wrote: post #60
yesyesno wrote: post #33

Ouch. I read this and I am completely confused about what to do with the rest of the time I have left. Should I even bother with my current career in tech, or would it be better to quit it and do something that could have even a slight impact now? These articles are great, but preaching to the choir. What should any of us do? I'm seriously and sincerely asking. Are there any suggestions, from a personal stand point i…

"I read this and I am completely confused about what to do with the rest of the time I have left." It is a grave life error to assign excessive likelihood to the doomsayers. I've been reading about inevitable doom for 25 years now. Some of what I read as a kid dated to the 60s and the guaranteed dates of inevitable doom had already passed by the time I read them in the early 90s. Even assuming they are completely 100…

It's tricky when a preponderance of evidence and theory tells us that the lag time on the signal is several decades but human generations are also measured in decades. It doesn't matter how strong your negative feedback is if the system it's controlling is in thermal runaway by the time you apply a corrective signal.

Maybe we can bandaid or mitigate the worst effects for some people. Probably richer people. But just see Harvey and wildfires and droughts for strong evidence that we will not do anything whatsoever even when cities are being destroyed by inaction.

Re: Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change

#95

Post by [deleted] »

shusson wrote: post #77
netgusto wrote: post #67

Why is this entry already on page 2 of HN? Seems a bit fast given the popularity and the fact that it was posted 2 hours ago (also, compared to those that are present on p1) -- edit: we're now on page 3 just 30 minutes after my comment.

wondering the same thing, people flagging it?

[deleted]

Re: Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change

#96

Post by tech-no-logical »

netgusto wrote: post #67

Why is this entry already on page 2 of HN? Seems a bit fast given the popularity and the fact that it was posted 2 hours ago (also, compared to those that are present on p1) -- edit: we're now on page 3 just 30 minutes after my comment.

came here looking for an answer. I've never seen a NYT article sink so fast...

Re: Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change

#97

Post by netgusto »

tech-no-logical wrote: post #96
netgusto wrote: post #67

Why is this entry already on page 2 of HN? Seems a bit fast given the popularity and the fact that it was posted 2 hours ago (also, compared to those that are present on p1) -- edit: we're now on page 3 just 30 minutes after my comment.

came here looking for an answer. I've never seen a NYT article sink so fast...

Yes, same impression here. If disagreed upon, this topic should be dealt with controversy, not censorship.

It makes me sad.

Re: Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change

#99

Post by zaarn »

majewsky wrote: post #61
zaarn wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would, however, propose that once we have CO2-neutral energy production, we use some of it to recapture CO2 if the effect would be even minimal.

The problem is that "once we have CO2-neutral energy production" is way too late. There are several tipping points where the rising temperature sets off other processes that speed up warming even further. For example, when the Russian permafrost melts, it will release gigantic amounts of methane, a very potent greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere. Once that happens, not only do you have to capture all the CO2 you emit…

Let's also not forget the methan hydrate deposits on the coasts. Even minor temperature increase or pressure change at depth would cause them to explosively abandon their place.

We have found 3km wide crates in the deep sea formed by such methane deposits going nuclear, I doubt such an event would be pleasant for nearby coastal regions.

Re: Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change

#100

Post by zaarn »

agumonkey wrote: post #73
zaarn wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The global CO2 production dwarfs what you could do with trees, I'm fairly certain even if we planted a tree on every square centimeter available, it would not be sufficient to counter our production sufficiently. What we need is to invest in technology to reduce CO2. Nuclear fusion/fission, solar, wind, electric or alternative fuel cars, redesign CO2 industry processes, etc. The petrol and coal industry would have to…

If you understand French, there's an engineer called Jean-Marc Jancovici who is deep into the 'nuclear is the only solution so far'. He made talks on youtube on how to decarbonate economies.

I don't think nuclear will be the only solution, solar and wind may be useful in a post-fusion-energy world.
Post reply on HN