Seaweed could be scrubbing more carbon from the atmosphere than expected (2017) • Hacker News Board

Re: Seaweed could be scrubbing more carbon from the atmosphere than expected (2017)

#161

Post by nickkell » Wed, Aug 08, 2018, 1:17 PM UTC

Tharkun wrote: post #114

SiempreViernes wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but there is a solution that is orders of magnitude more effective: don't buy meat, thereby allowing cow farming to end. Not eating meat is however seen as too 'inconvenient' a solution, so instead someone is trying to sell seaweed fed cows as a "partial solution" where it is really more of a gimmick.

Statements like "don't buy meat" are much more of a gimmick than tinkering with cattle feed. The latter is a realistic option -- which might not make a huge difference, but it will make a difference. The former is a pipe dream. Humans have been eating meat since before they were human. Good luck changing that in the timeframe we have before climate change becomes very painful.

Do you think people ate as much meat then as now? The mass farming of animals is an incredibly new phenomenon in comparison to how long humans have been around. And what about driving? By your argument it should be easy to give up considering we only started it recently.

These solutions are simple, but not easy. Therefore people are looking for a complex solution that's also easy and I think we'll be looking for it as the water rises above our necks.

Re: Seaweed could be scrubbing more carbon from the atmosphere than expected (2017)

#162

Post by jules » Wed, Aug 08, 2018, 1:18 PM UTC

enraged_camel wrote: post #103

jules wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is exceedingly unlikely that raised temperatures or sea levels would end humanity. Even if all ice melts there would still be a lot of land, and humans can and do currently survive in hot climates. The habitable zone will just shrink a bit, but it will also expand in other places. Siberia + 5 degrees is still cold.

No, this is very wrong. It’s not about having land to live on and being able to continue to breathe on it. Of course we would be able to do that. The issue is all the parts of the ecosystem we have come to rely on. Animals, plants, insects... the entire global economy and our ways of live are tightly intertwined with everything else and even small disruptions can have enormous repercussions, especially on more vulner…

That it would hurt vulnerable populations who live in a region that becomes uninhabitable is undoubtedly true and I didn't argue against that, but that is not the end of humanity, which is what you claimed.

Re: Seaweed could be scrubbing more carbon from the atmosphere than expected (2017)

#163

Post by nickkell » Wed, Aug 08, 2018, 1:20 PM UTC

tim333 wrote: post #75

nickkell wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hackernews loves these articles that give some kind of hope for a magical solution to climate change. It's easier than the thought that it will require a huge concerted effort across the world and changing the habits of millions

Well some hope is good. Cows are a bigger deal than you might think see eg. "Cow 'emissions' more damaging to planet than CO2 from cars" https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cow...

I agree that livestock is a huge problem, but I think this kind of article is a false hope that prevents people grasping the true problem. It's like playing the lottery - something inneffective that still gives us a warm feeling nonetheless.

Re: Seaweed could be scrubbing more carbon from the atmosphere than expected (2017)

#164

Post by snikeris » Wed, Aug 08, 2018, 3:06 PM UTC

CuriousSkeptic wrote: post #150

snikeris wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I could equally argue that your contribution to raising the CO2 concentration of our shared resource, the atmosphere, is not sanctioned by me. Then I suppose you should do us all a favor and stop breathing because your breathing is not sanctioned by me. (Just kidding, it is :)) Seriously though, that's just the way it's always been. We're born into the world and we act w/out permission to survive. I don't have to p…

I guess there is a fundamental difference in how we see the commons. I take the view that it is not simply “there” as a first come first serve basis, but rather something we have an equal right to, the basis from which private property must be derived. Locke started here. But I think the breathing thing is actually a good retort. Where do the principles meet... I guess in the case the differenence is between drinking…

> I take the view that it is not simply “there” as a first come first serve basis, but rather something we have an equal right to, the basis from which private property must be derived. Locke started here.

I think I'm with you there. I don't have a problem paying property tax because as a person born on this earth, you're also entitled to my land. I'm paying a tax for the privilege of it being mine.

Re: Seaweed could be scrubbing more carbon from the atmosphere than expected (2017)

#165

Post by lurquer » Wed, Aug 08, 2018, 8:01 PM UTC

pyrale wrote: post #158

eanzenberg wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is 3deg C or 10deg F until 2100 that massive of a transition event?

The last ice age (ie a sheet of ice covering a large part of NA) was about 4ºC or 12ºF colder. So yes, that is a pretty massive thing, especially happening over a lifetime.

The freezing point of water creates a discontinuity in the effects of temperature change. That is, a ten degree swing that results in water freezing (or melting) for most of the year is far different than than a ten degree swing in a range far above (or below) 32 degrees.

Re: Seaweed could be scrubbing more carbon from the atmosphere than expected (2017)

#166

Post by bumholio » Wed, Aug 22, 2018, 7:48 AM UTC

lurquer wrote: post #165

pyrale wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The last ice age (ie a sheet of ice covering a large part of NA) was about 4ºC or 12ºF colder. So yes, that is a pretty massive thing, especially happening over a lifetime.

The freezing point of water creates a discontinuity in the effects of temperature change. That is, a ten degree swing that results in water freezing (or melting) for most of the year is far different than than a ten degree swing in a range far above (or below) 32 degrees.

On the other hand, a positive 10 degree global increase will include regions where water freezes regularly. This will either completely change the climate of those regions, or would mean that temperature swings in the rest of the world will increase much higher to compensate.