Permafrost collapse is accelerating carbon release • Hacker News Board

Re: Permafrost collapse is accelerating carbon release

#81

Post by ThomPete » Wed, May 01, 2019, 12:31 PM UTC

freeflight wrote: post #71

ThomPete wrote: post #60

Again a speculative article. “Might” is the important word in that article and Might” is not the word you use in scientifically demonstrated claims. This debate have become so ideological that all reason has left the room a long time ago. Show me scientifically demonstrated consequences not just speculated consequences we cant deal with, then ill rally behind you until then i am quite confident in my non-alarmist pos…

You are asking for absolutes in science, which is something that does not exist because science is not dogma, thus open to corrections, which is inherently opposed to making absolute statements. That's why scientific statements use probabilities and words like "might", it has nothing to do with "not demonstrated" but everything with admitting that humans are fallible beings and there's always a margin of error.

I am asking for a demonstrated fact not speculation. I know what the difference is in science.

It's not a scientific statement it's interpretation of ths science something very very different.

There are plenty of areas where I can point to specific facts which can be demonstrated to be true. So I am not asking for anything insane here. Just that we stop pretending speculated is the same as demonstrated.

As an example. Let's assume that human CO2 emissions have some effect on the climate.

Try and find the specific percentage that humans are demonstrated to be affecting climate. Not just speculated but demonstrated. I would even allow for a 10% margin.

Re: Permafrost collapse is accelerating carbon release

#82

Post by viraptor » Wed, May 01, 2019, 1:20 PM UTC

roenxi wrote: post #79

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the current extreme right Tory party. One would normally expect their Environment Minister to pretend the protests and environment don't exist. Any admission is remarkable - but useless. For action we need a change of government. We've already had a select committee on climate that was unequivocal about what action and urgency was needed. > This thing you call a 'rather extremist position' is a traditional posit…

> A more unlikely pair to promote such regulation I can't imagine. And that is your hint that you have misunderstood how the right of politics works, including the extreme right. There is no lobby that wants to destroy the environment because they don't like it. If someone comes along with a credible threat to people, they act on it. The issue is that the ozone layer burning away poses a very clear threat to people w…

> the people advocating that it is an emergency seem to implicitly accept that the cost of nuclear is even higher than the cost of AGW

You're mixing two groups of people and presenting them together based on your idea of them. Opinions about the risk of nuclear power and the risk of agw are orthogonal.

Re: Permafrost collapse is accelerating carbon release

#83

Post by koheripbal » Wed, May 01, 2019, 1:21 PM UTC

mirimir wrote: post #19

ImprovedSilence wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure it's well known that we're currently in one of the largest extinction events.

From another perspective, we are "one of the largest extinction events".

Is it just me, or are HN comments becoming less and less informative, and more and more like Reddit zingers?

Re: Permafrost collapse is accelerating carbon release

#84

Post by koheripbal » Wed, May 01, 2019, 1:24 PM UTC

legostormtroopr wrote: post #73

ForHackernews wrote: post #2

This is an emergency; it's well past time we started acting like it: https://rebellion.earth/

Yeah - its about time someone started a focused group dedicated to climate change... > There will be a Puerto Rico contingency to the May Day Protests in NY that will create a specific performance relevant to the fight against debt and the 121 years of colonialism against Puerto Rico more generally. https://rebellion.earth/event/debt-is-a-hurricane-puerto-ric... Well, looks like another well intention green movement…

The biggest problem with this rebellion is that it advocates disruption in the countries doing the MOST to combat climate change.

I don't see any events planned in the biggest CO2 producers.

Re: Permafrost collapse is accelerating carbon release

#85

Post by NeedMoreTea » Wed, May 01, 2019, 1:31 PM UTC

roenxi wrote: post #79

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the current extreme right Tory party. One would normally expect their Environment Minister to pretend the protests and environment don't exist. Any admission is remarkable - but useless. For action we need a change of government. We've already had a select committee on climate that was unequivocal about what action and urgency was needed. > This thing you call a 'rather extremist position' is a traditional posit…

> A more unlikely pair to promote such regulation I can't imagine. And that is your hint that you have misunderstood how the right of politics works, including the extreme right. There is no lobby that wants to destroy the environment because they don't like it. If someone comes along with a credible threat to people, they act on it. The issue is that the ozone layer burning away poses a very clear threat to people w…

> you have misunderstood how the right of politics works

lol. You know nothing of my politics, education, or my history over the last 50 odd years.

Edit: For the sake of clarity: In the late 1980s and 1990s, Thatcher - on the right of politics - often spoke in favour of massive global action on climate change, not just that UN speech. Trying to make the issue distinct from CFCs that she also spoke out against is stretching it.

> It remains opaque whether the costs of dealing with that change are higher than preventing that change

No, it really doesn't, unless you are seeking a precise figure in pounds, shillings and pence. We didn't have that for ozone either. Or the clean air acts, or mass public clean water and sewerage. Nor do we have figures for the respiratory diseases from internal combustion and other pollution, and the host of other externalities.

There's little substantive difference between the CFC issue and climate change other than the scale and the politicians involved. It's clear that those currently in power are doing far worse than a generation ago, whether left, right or centre.

Re: Permafrost collapse is accelerating carbon release

#86

Post by rjf72 » Wed, May 01, 2019, 1:32 PM UTC

Angostura wrote: post #63

rjf72 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Noel Brown was the director of the UN Environmental Program in North America. He's going to be sourcing whatever internal figures they're working with. And yeah, given that he is the directory of the program in North America, I expect you're right that he was referencing fahrenheit and not celsius. I assumed celsius as he was described simply as a "senior UN Environment official." Given he directed the program in Nor…

> Noel Brown was the director of the UN Environmental Program in North America. He was the head of the New York Office. I'm not sure those two things are synonyms.

A quick search for 'Noel Brown unep director' will resolve any doubts, and incidentally also provides lots more information on him and other commentary he's provided over the decades.

Re: Permafrost collapse is accelerating carbon release

#87

Post by roenxi » Wed, May 01, 2019, 1:35 PM UTC

viraptor wrote: post #82

roenxi wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A more unlikely pair to promote such regulation I can't imagine. And that is your hint that you have misunderstood how the right of politics works, including the extreme right. There is no lobby that wants to destroy the environment because they don't like it. If someone comes along with a credible threat to people, they act on it. The issue is that the ozone layer burning away poses a very clear threat to people w…

> the people advocating that it is an emergency seem to implicitly accept that the cost of nuclear is even higher than the cost of AGW You're mixing two groups of people and presenting them together based on your idea of them. Opinions about the risk of nuclear power and the risk of agw are orthogonal.

I'm doing a lot of hand-waving but the two topics aren't orthogonal nor are opinions.

I don't see how a person can be taken seriously if they are claiming there is an extreme risk from climate change and not fairly radically pro-nuclear. I've seen mass protests about climate change, they don't tend to be chanting "nuclear now".

The times might be changing now, but for most of the environmental movement's history nuclear has remained by far the most cost-effective choice. If they were serious about the risk of climate change then there would be massive pushes for nuclear power coming out of the green factions. I havn't seen it; only in isolated cases (tending towards engineers and scientists who care about the environment). The mainstream environmentalists tend to be in favour solar and wind.

If there is time to let perfect be the enemy of good enough then the threat can't be that urgent. The right wing is perfectly reasonable in dragging their heels. Look how successful that strategy has been so far; solar is almost economic on its own merits.

Re: Permafrost collapse is accelerating carbon release

#88

Post by viraptor » Wed, May 01, 2019, 1:36 PM UTC

baruchthescribe wrote: post #36

mattygh wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes it is: https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/arctic-meteorology/climate_chan... "Over the past 30 years, it has warmed more than any other region on earth"

Ask NOAA for their temperature records going back a century and see if it's normal and cyclical instead of their cherry picked data from 1979 onwards.

It would be problematic for an agency established in 1970 to get "their temperature records" from 1918. Unless you mean another specific agency that existed at the time, but I don't think that's likely. If you want research from NOAA and other sources, it's been linked already.

Re: Permafrost collapse is accelerating carbon release

#89

Post by viraptor » Wed, May 01, 2019, 1:48 PM UTC

roenxi wrote: post #87

viraptor wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the people advocating that it is an emergency seem to implicitly accept that the cost of nuclear is even higher than the cost of AGW You're mixing two groups of people and presenting them together based on your idea of them. Opinions about the risk of nuclear power and the risk of agw are orthogonal.

I'm doing a lot of hand-waving but the two topics aren't orthogonal nor are opinions. I don't see how a person can be taken seriously if they are claiming there is an extreme risk from climate change and not fairly radically pro-nuclear. I've seen mass protests about climate change, they don't tend to be chanting "nuclear now". The times might be changing now, but for most of the environmental movement's history nucl…

> but the two topics aren't orthogonal nor are opinions.

The topics are orthogonal. You can have independent opinions about either of them. There's a group with common opinions on both, but that doesn't mean you can't place yourself in in another position.

But you don't get all the choices you want. For some reason no party around me wants replacement with nuclear power as a policy, so the next best thing is voting for those who care about doing anything: green, or some independent. I know a green's councillor who's pro-nuclear, but runs with greens so she can make any difference at all.

I'm not sure what realistic option for a common person are you proposing that are better than "vote green and say their nuclear policy is shit"?

Re: Permafrost collapse is accelerating carbon release

#90

Post by gameswithgo » Wed, May 01, 2019, 1:58 PM UTC

rjf72 wrote: post #24

bdamm wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NASA testified to the US Senate in 1988 that "higher temperatures can now be attributed to a long-expected global warming trend linked to pollution". [1] So, with more than 30 years of taking the issue seriously, what do you suppose we should do, from a risk-management perspective? [1] https://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/24/us/global-warming-has-beg...

There's one big issue inhibiting any sort of productive change on this issue. "A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2030. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of…

>I think the most logical thing to do would be to put out pinpoint accurate predictions. When you do this you'd establish a substantial degree of reliability in the field

they DID, dude. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97...