A 3°C world has no safe place • Hacker News Board

Re: A 3°C world has no safe place

#241

Post by jiggawatts » Sat, Jul 24, 2021, 1:41 AM UTC

> It's surreal.

It's also most certainly not the only example of such behaviour.

My personal favourite to use on people with an IT background is IPv4 exhaustion.

Global warming is related to the finite capacity of the atmosphere to absorb an excess pollutant, which is growing exponentially thanks to a burgeoning human population. Address exhaustion is due to a finite resource being exhausted due to an increasing population of people with networked devices.

Both are slow-motion, global-scale disasters.

Both have no clear deadline or dramatic event.

Neither has any immediacy, it's all just graphs trending the wrong way.

Just like how no individual or enterprise profits from fixing global warming, nobody profits from fixing IPv4. If you make a personal sacrifice to give up IPv4, nobody will reward you.

In both cases, the incumbents are hoarding resources, and trying to stave of the inevitable change that will devalue their accumulated capital. IPv4 has become a commodity resource traded on markets, to be hoovered up by mega-corporations to fend off smaller players from competing head to head with them. Do you think Saudi Aramco will just let go of their trillion dollars of unexploited oil fields? Do you think Azure or AWS will just give up on their millions of accumulated addresses?

There is one key difference however:

Global warming has some legitimate debate about its exact course: what specific path the curve will follow, and which model is accurate.

IPv4 exhaustion had no debate whatsoever. The exhaustion of each regional pool was predicted to the week, years ahead. Each one occurred exactly on schedule.

What have YOU done to "save the world"? What have you sacrificed, personally to enable IPv6-only networking?

You have no excuses, you can't even say you didn't see it coming!

So:

Have you forced your company to upgrade to IPv6?

Have you written your software to work flawlessly in an IPv6-only network?

Have you made it a hard requirement for all networked products you purchase or use to be IPv6 native?

No, no you haven't.

Azure doesn't support IPv6 in any meaningful way. Neither does any other major cloud provider. It's an add on. An optional extra, that may or may not work.

Kubernetes, the "future", does not support IPv6 right now, 21 years after it became widely available, and years after several regions dropped below their last /8 of available address space.

"It would be a lot of work to add IPv6 support" I hear people complaining.

Oh... oh wow. Gee. Golly. I didn't know! I take it all back. Let's just stay on IPv4 forever and use NAT five layers deep. I hear Global Warming is going to take a lot of work to fix also. Let's just all buy air conditioners and never venture outside again.

Re: A 3°C world has no safe place

#242

Post by ddingus » Sat, Jul 24, 2021, 1:48 AM UTC

belorn wrote: post #239

lacker wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me, it is just the nature of large groups of human beings that sometimes there is an impending disaster, but people do not agree on what to do about it, and humanity stumbles into disaster. Look at Europe before WW1 or WW2, how many people predicted an imminent disastrous war, and how little agreement there was on how to fix it. Climate change is probably not as bad as impending WW3, but it shouldn't be surprising…

I have seen in every movement that while people share the goal, they do not share the strategy. The strategy often involve trade offs and cultural values that is separated from the common goal, and the stronger people feel about the goal the more convinced they are about their own chosen strategy. The most bitter fights tend to be between people who strongly share the same goals. Preparing for a hotter world is nice,…

I share that hope, but harbor no expectation of it actually happening.

And frankly lining things up so my fam and I can live really lean. Tough times ahead.

Might be 5 years, decade, maybe two, but tough times are coming.

The scale and latency in all this point to us having past the time when we could really mitigate, amd the scale means humans taking it hard a few times before realizing a big effort makes sense.

Re: A 3°C world has no safe place

#243

Post by ddingus » Sat, Jul 24, 2021, 1:54 AM UTC

goatlover wrote: post #213

visiblink wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear is such a horrible replacement. Let's let future generations deal with the waste from the power that sustained our lifestyle. I hate it. I'd rather live with less.

You would, but realistically, a majority of people are not willing to live with significantly less (which would entail a contraction in the economy and loss of jobs). And that includes all the people in countries still catching up. Nuclear was the alternative decades ago, and we could have witched to it until renewable tech was up to scale. So we decided a significantly warmer climate was better than dealing with rad…

It does not have to mean a loss of jobs.

It would mean different jobs, and it means valuing work differently right along with things.

Re: A 3°C world has no safe place

#244

Post by bookofsand » Sat, Jul 24, 2021, 1:56 AM UTC

scoofy wrote: post #49

American here. I took a bunch of earth science classes in college in 1999. I realized then, I would just plan ahead and aim for an urbanist lifestyle, because our country would have to change. I focused on transit alternatives as my primary advocacy, because it was the most obvious low-hanging fruit and paired with the public health. I never imagined this would happen, but as the years went on, I grew less astonished…

The numbers don't work out. Let's say in USA we cut meat consumption, car usage and air travel in half. That is quite a lot, congratulations to our eco-conscious citizens!

Alas, let's not pat ourselves on the back just yet. USA accounts for 15% of global emissions. Agriculture and transportation make 14% and 24%, together 48%. Half of that is 24%. 24% of 15% is 3.6% of global emissions. On the flip side:

* 96.4 of the emissions continue.

* Global emissions increased 10% since 2010, 3x more than what we saved with great (relative) sacrifice.

We may push the looming horizon a decade or two, but we won't stop the process, forget about reverting it. As the so called third world countries are moving out of poverty, aka undergoing a rapid industrialization process, emissions are bound to raise irrespective of what the so called first world countries do, due to sheer population mass. Consider the fundamental emissions equation:

   TotalEmissions = WorldArea * PopulationDensity * PerCapitaEmissions

WorldArea is constant, while industrialization greatly increases both PopulationDensity and PerCapitaEmissions. The only way restore the balance is a voluntary return to the stone age. Unfortunately, that is a political impossibility.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss...

Edit: The estimated range for global emissions to maintain only a 1.5C growth has a range of 22-31 GtCO2e. Assuming emissions at the rate of France of about 5tCO2 / capita, the globally industrialized world of 2050 with 10B people will have global emissions of 50GtCO2, or 75GtCO2e. That is 3x more than Earth can sustain. Going down the list of emissions per capita by country, we find Albania, Morocco or Colombia. What we need to make the numbers is a 10x decrease in income/wealth of US residents, not minor lifestyle adjustments.

https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/30798/...

https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-pe...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_grow...

Re: A 3°C world has no safe place

#245

Post by Applejinx » Sat, Jul 24, 2021, 2:00 AM UTC

jandrewrogers wrote: post #225

wrs wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seattle is sometimes pointed to as a “climate sanctuary”. A couple of weeks ago it was 108° here in Seattle. Let me repeat that: a hundred and eight degrees. In Seattle. Our reaction as a city: air conditioning installation is booked out for months.

FWIW, most of the weather modeling people (e.g. Cliff Mass) are asserting that the PNW heat wave was more of a Black Swan event caused by a near perfect storm of ordinary weather factors that had little to do with climate change. The contribution of climate change to this specific event was marginal at best, this type of heat wave has always been possible in principle.

Listen to yourself. Black swan event, possible in principle, near perfect storm of ordinary weather factors…

Read up on what chaos theory and chaotic behavior of systems is. Investigate the principle of 'period three implies chaos' and observe what happens when you have stably chaotic behaviors, with known excursions, and then you slightly increase the energy in the system.

What WE are saying (which in no way contradicts what Cliff Mass is also saying) is that the increase of energy, even by seemingly little amounts, radically increases the possible range of outcomes… and the 'black swan' events become commonplace, and then you get NEW 'black swan' events that are truly the exception rather than the new norm.

And that is what we are concerned about, and why 'A 3°C world has no safe place'. Cliff is not necessarily wrong that black swan events happen. He may be fatally wrong about recent behavior constituting a 'black swan'. This is more like the new normal: not sustained heat domes in a predictable way, but this type of event.

You'll know the real black swan when it comes, because it will be demonstrating the impossible and unsurvivable. We just don't know the exact form of it, or where it'll be, but there will be no mistaking it. I don't believe the heat dome was the real black swan.

Re: A 3°C world has no safe place

#246

Post by belltaco » Sat, Jul 24, 2021, 2:47 AM UTC

bko wrote: post #200

magicalist wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but you should be honest about what reducing emissions means to billions of people that are just now coming into the industrial age. Isn't that part of the point? If the US has maintained per capita emission levels that would be ruinous if the rest of the world joined us at, can you really say "we" are done with anything? OP listed a bunch of specific things, moderate efficiencies and switching to natural gas are g…

I don't get what you're asking. US emissions per capita have been going down considerably since ~2000 without too much prodding or political will. As have Europes. If you look at the chart, there are only three countries with growing per capita emissions and that's China Russia and India, but most dramatically China. I don't see your point refereeing the past emissions of the US as some kind of moral victory against…

Way to cherry pick things and sugar coat the stats for the US.

Per capita emissions for the US: 15.52 tons

Per capita emissions for India: 1.91

US has about eight times the per capita emission of India, double that of China(which makes a lot of things for the US) and somehow India and China are to blame and the US deserves no blame, even given all its riches and having the means to reduce emissions?

Re: A 3°C world has no safe place

#247

Post by jdkee » Sat, Jul 24, 2021, 3:01 AM UTC

Swizec wrote: post #134

scoofy wrote: post #49

American here. I took a bunch of earth science classes in college in 1999. I realized then, I would just plan ahead and aim for an urbanist lifestyle, because our country would have to change. I focused on transit alternatives as my primary advocacy, because it was the most obvious low-hanging fruit and paired with the public health. I never imagined this would happen, but as the years went on, I grew less astonished…

A recent Freakonomics episode about America absolutely blew my mind and cemented this idea I've been trolling friends with that suburbia should be banned. Americans use 2 trillion gallons of water per year ... for lawns. Nice green lawns. In the desert, in the south, in the north, between highways, friggen' lawns everywhere. No consideration for grasses that naturally enjoy the local environment. Only a perfect Briti…

Two cubic miles of water. Lake Michigan has 1,180 cubic miles by comparison.

Re: A 3°C world has no safe place

#248

Post by orf » Sat, Jul 24, 2021, 3:13 AM UTC

bko wrote: post #128

scoofy wrote: post #49

American here. I took a bunch of earth science classes in college in 1999. I realized then, I would just plan ahead and aim for an urbanist lifestyle, because our country would have to change. I focused on transit alternatives as my primary advocacy, because it was the most obvious low-hanging fruit and paired with the public health. I never imagined this would happen, but as the years went on, I grew less astonished…

I don't know who you're referring to as 'we' but in the US, carbon emissions have actually peaked in the early 2000s and decreased in an absolute sense since then, despite growing population and industrialization. We're currently at 1986 emission levels. US has 15% of global emissions, while China has 28% and is growing in both per person and absolute. I don't think you're wrong to be cynical about tackling this prob…

So you’re saying 300m people in the US generate only half as many emissions as 1.4 billion people living in a country that is basically the worlds factory?

And you think that’s OK?

Re: A 3°C world has no safe place

#249

Post by CompuHacker » Sat, Jul 24, 2021, 3:13 AM UTC

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #133

spoonjim wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could live in 200 square feet. You could bathe with one bucket of room temperature water. You could use no air conditioning whatsoever. You could eat only vegetarian food. Etc etc. You won’t, (and I won’t either) but if it comes down to human survival, forces will find a way to make you do it.

"You could live in 200 square feet." The house is already a sunk cost, so I am not sure how much point there is

You could confine yourself to one or two rooms and open the rest of the house to communal occupation.

Re: A 3°C world has no safe place

#250

Post by e12e » Sat, Jul 24, 2021, 3:25 AM UTC

bookofsand wrote: post #244

scoofy wrote: post #49

American here. I took a bunch of earth science classes in college in 1999. I realized then, I would just plan ahead and aim for an urbanist lifestyle, because our country would have to change. I focused on transit alternatives as my primary advocacy, because it was the most obvious low-hanging fruit and paired with the public health. I never imagined this would happen, but as the years went on, I grew less astonished…

The numbers don't work out. Let's say in USA we cut meat consumption, car usage and air travel in half. That is quite a lot, congratulations to our eco-conscious citizens! Alas, let's not pat ourselves on the back just yet. USA accounts for 15% of global emissions. Agriculture and transportation make 14% and 24%, together 48%. Half of that is 24%. 24% of 15% is 3.6% of global emissions. On the flip side: * 96.4 of th…

Seems to be missing that the US can cut US emissions, but cannot cut other countries' emissions. So if you can drop (say) 5% global emissions and choose not to - that's just willful ignorance?