We Have Four Years to Save Ourselves from Climate Change, Harvard Scientist Says • Hacker News Board

Re: We Have Four Years to Save Ourselves from Climate Change, Harvard Scientist Says

#101

Post by toyg » Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 2:28 PM UTC

bryanlarsen wrote: post #83

toyg wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be honest, it’s obvious that we’re already too late for “reversing” anyway: there is no practical way to dramatically change how 7.5bn people live and work, in just 4 years. Even if we all dropped what we’re doing this very minute and started looking for other ways to live, in 4 years we would’ve barely scratched the surface of the problem. At that point, whether we have 4 or 2 years before the tipping point, is f…

A significant portion of "bracing for it" would involve trying to minimize the level of damage; that's basically the same effort as trying to avoid it, so...

The scale is different, and when it comes to societal acceptance, scale is everything.

“We need to stop all industry tomorrow or ice will melt!”

Vs

“Ice will melt. We need to close a few of the worst-impacting plants so it melts a bit slower and gives us time to figure out where we might need dams. Everybody else, as you were.”

The first proposition has no chance whatsoever to be taken seriously. I understand Overton but I admit a certain tiredness on this particular falling-sky topic.

Re: We Have Four Years to Save Ourselves from Climate Change, Harvard Scientist Says

#102

Post by jrochkind1 » Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 2:29 PM UTC

bryanlarsen wrote: post #79

jrochkind1 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, we can't destroy the planet , but we can make life for humans much more painful and/or impossible. (Along with lots of other species, but humans are the ones I care about most).

Humans could be fine. We've got the capability to turn energy into food in a purely artificial environment. (Google vertical farming). The price of food would go up significantly and society never does well when that happens, but our economy is big enough to feed 7-10 billion people that way if it actually had the will to do so. Rats will probably also do well; they're pretty urban adapted. Any other species? Questio…

I wouldn't place bets on how "big" our "economy" is going to be once the serious destabilization starts happening. Sadly, at the moment humans are showing themselves more interested in viciously attacking each other to protect "what's theirs", rather than banding together to save us all. The standards being set by our current US government for how to help people in trouble globally are... terrifying. I'm not optimistic about what it's going to look like when the shit hits the fan. But yeah, that means our task now has to be trying to build cooperative and egalitarian power and attitude, it'll be too late when shit starts really turning upside down.

Re: We Have Four Years to Save Ourselves from Climate Change, Harvard Scientist Says

#103

Post by KirinDave » Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 2:31 PM UTC

assblaster wrote: post #74

KirinDave wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem with predictions like this is that this prediction will look silly in 4 years when the Earth has not ended Can you explain why people like you who come here to post "the world won't end in 4 years" consistently do not read the article, and consistently set the bar at "literally the oblate sphereoid we are on explodes" as opposed to "the climate is so radically different it threatens every aspect of huma…

You're not understanding the article, and you are making the same dramatic predictions ("even more mass extinctions". The prediction is that we're heading for catastrophe, something that we'll never be able to handle. It ignores the geologic temperature record ( https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/65_Myr_C... ). You mention mass extinctions, but you don't mention that previous mass extinction events w…

> The prediction is that we're heading for catastrophe, something that we'll never be able to handle. It ignores the geologic temperature record (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/65

It is indeed a chart, but no one here is ignoring it. Is the argument, "Don't worry we could just trigger another ice age and after a few tens of thousands of years the fallen bodies of our families and plants will re-sequester an appropriate amount of carbon?"

That seems to be small comfort, and it further reinforces the idea that the only threat to the biosphere you're willing to consider is a movie-style asteroid impact or something else that would shatter or at least significantly deform the planet's shape, as opposed to a change in climate dramatic enough to cause massive problems for human society all over the world.

> You mention mass extinctions, but you don't mention that previous mass extinction events were due primarily to asteroid impacts and volcanic eruptions.

No, I didn't mention it because it wasn't in scope. You dodged my question and instead tried to introduce a bunch of chaff questions to raise the notion that maybe, just maybe the science hasn't come to a broad consensus about the bad outcomes we're facing.

But the consensus is obviously there. Hell, your own diagram is from an article about said consensus, debating the finer details within the parameters if said consensus.

Why? You obviously aren't stupid. Why do you cling to ideas that are so obviously and verifiably false? It's like talking to someone who believes the earth is flat, only instead of being able to be calm and detached about someone's curious religion I have to be terrified because they're advocating for practices that cause climate destruction.

Re: We Have Four Years to Save Ourselves from Climate Change, Harvard Scientist Says

#104

Post by mcv » Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 2:32 PM UTC

assblaster wrote: post #74

KirinDave wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem with predictions like this is that this prediction will look silly in 4 years when the Earth has not ended Can you explain why people like you who come here to post "the world won't end in 4 years" consistently do not read the article, and consistently set the bar at "literally the oblate sphereoid we are on explodes" as opposed to "the climate is so radically different it threatens every aspect of huma…

You're not understanding the article, and you are making the same dramatic predictions ("even more mass extinctions". The prediction is that we're heading for catastrophe, something that we'll never be able to handle. It ignores the geologic temperature record ( https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/65_Myr_C... ). You mention mass extinctions, but you don't mention that previous mass extinction events w…

But this one is not going to be due to an asteroid or volcano; this one will be on us.

And it's not just about mass extinction; humanity itself is already a mass extinction event. But it will also be harder to feed people if the climate becomes unpredictable. Inhabited places can become less habitable. And the big one: if the eastern Antarctic ice cap starts melting, we're eventually going to have to evacuate most major population centers.

That is indeed not something we'll be able to handle. And we have frankly no idea when the exact deadline is that we may be able to prevent that from happening, or whether we may already have passed it, but we do know that many other ice caps are already melting, which is bad enough in itself, but also a warning for what might still come.

Re: We Have Four Years to Save Ourselves from Climate Change, Harvard Scientist Says

#105

Post by snarf21 » Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 2:33 PM UTC

toyg wrote: post #60

snarf21 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think his four years is too fast but I also don't think we can totally destroy the planet (aside from nuclear destruction). We know too much and have too much technology. Some (small?) fragment of civilization will survive while the earth recovers. For example, methane has a half life of seven years so it will take some time. The more immediate threat seems to be around food and water. The Ogallala Aquifer is dryin…

With all due respect, I strongly doubt anybody would be seriously impacted by that aquifer outside of North America. This said, anything that turns Americans angrier is a security risk for the rest of the world.

The US contributes almost 15% of the global wheat exports and 60% of US soybeans go to China. I'm not saying it will end the world but I can't see how it won't have an impact.

Re: We Have Four Years to Save Ourselves from Climate Change, Harvard Scientist Says

#106

Post by goatlover » Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 2:35 PM UTC

Frondo wrote: post #96

goatlover wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Population Bomb by Paul Elrich back in 1968 predicted worldwide famine in the 70s and 80s because of overpopulation. There's been quite a few over the last few decades relating to overpopulation, environmental destruction and running out of vital resources to keep civilization going. So far, these dire predictions have not come true. Which doesn't men they can't, but they should give us some pause about predictin…

There has always been a market for mass-market doomsday prediction material; whether religious or secular. A population bomb leading to famine has never been the result of prolonged scientific discussion, just one guy's theories (published in book form, which is subject to editorial review but not peer review), and saying "this is a prediction that someone made that was false" is true but unhelpful. Anyone can make a…

It's not that nothing is knowable, it's that predicting the future is hard and easy to get wrong, particularly with something as complex as civilization, since humans adapt and civilization changes. The same applies to the biosphere as well. Saying for example that polar bears will go extinct or coral will all die off is ignoring the possibility that some bears and coral will adapt to the warmer world. We can't be sure about such predictions. We need to see how life and civilization responds.

Re: We Have Four Years to Save Ourselves from Climate Change, Harvard Scientist Says

#107

Post by gdubs » Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 2:35 PM UTC

bleh123 wrote: post #17

It's amazing to me how most of these predictions refrain from calling out the single largest polluters in the world, China, from changing their behavior or doing anything substantial. In particular, this paragraph at the end: > In Chicago Thursday, he prosecuted a moral argument that implicates university administrators who refuse to divest from fossil fuels, journalists who fail to fact-check false statements made b…

The US has double the emissions per capita as China. [1]

China is also steadily moving towards one of the most ambitious carbon tax / cap and trade systems in the world. [2] Don’t have the exact source in front of me but I read in a paper recently that China’s new carbon market will cover a significant percentage of global carbon emissions when it’s in full swing.

1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_...

2: https://www.icf.com/blog/policy-and-regulation/china-carbon-...

Re: We Have Four Years to Save Ourselves from Climate Change, Harvard Scientist Says

#108

Post by Dumblydorr » Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 2:37 PM UTC

rb808 wrote: post #50

rawrmaan wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if anyone is researching this, but couldn't we manufacture stupidly large floating reflective tarps and start deploying them anywhere sea ice is melting? Seems like this would be a high benefit for relatively low cost.

I'd think they'd work better at the equator to reflect the most heat.

I believe we should start at the poles, as that would slow feedback loops there and save what little climate system we have. The poles are crucial holders of water in ice form, cooling those should be high priority.

Re: We Have Four Years to Save Ourselves from Climate Change, Harvard Scientist Says

#109

Post by mcv » Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 2:40 PM UTC

toyg wrote: post #101

bryanlarsen wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A significant portion of "bracing for it" would involve trying to minimize the level of damage; that's basically the same effort as trying to avoid it, so...

The scale is different, and when it comes to societal acceptance, scale is everything. “We need to stop all industry tomorrow or ice will melt!” Vs “Ice will melt. We need to close a few of the worst-impacting plants so it melts a bit slower and gives us time to figure out where we might need dams. Everybody else, as you were.” The first proposition has no chance whatsoever to be taken seriously. I understand Overton…

The problem is: the second one is not going to be enough. Closing a few plants won't do it. We need to dramatically change how we generate our energy.

Figuring out where we might need dams may be enough for the next couple decades, but if ice caps continue to melt, dams are never going to be able to stop 60 m of sea level rise. Melting slower is not enough. And at the moment, it's only going to melt faster because we're still producing way too much CO2.

Re: We Have Four Years to Save Ourselves from Climate Change, Harvard Scientist Says

#110

Post by bryanlarsen » Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 2:42 PM UTC

bleh123 wrote: post #17

It's amazing to me how most of these predictions refrain from calling out the single largest polluters in the world, China, from changing their behavior or doing anything substantial. In particular, this paragraph at the end: > In Chicago Thursday, he prosecuted a moral argument that implicates university administrators who refuse to divest from fossil fuels, journalists who fail to fact-check false statements made b…

"Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones"