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

The Great Siberian Thaw

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 104 posts

Re: The Great Siberian Thaw

#51

Post by jay_kyburz »

gremlinsinc wrote: post #44
dukeofdoom wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't worry you'll be okay. Every culture had an end times prophecy.

there's a difference between an end times prophecy and a confirmation that a planet killing asteroid will hit the earth in x months/years... there's ambiguity on how long we have left.. but we're headed towards extinction or nearly... maybe a few million survive to rebuild.. but life as we live today is completely unsustainable...

Yes, but if we apply ourselves, the life we live tomorrow can be both sustainable and better than what we have today.

Re: The Great Siberian Thaw

#52

Post by hh3k0 »

selectodude wrote: post #48
hh3k0 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, it made me hope there'd be a way to pay for this particular article when I reach its end.

There is - get yourself a subscription to The New Yorker. This piece of long-form is not unusual for them.

That came to mind, of course. I even used to have one! I cancelled it at some point because a) I could no longer stomach reading about US politics and b) I'm generally not much of a subcription guy. I might eventually pick it up again.

Re: The Great Siberian Thaw

#53

Post by fowkswe »

sega_sai wrote: post #10

I've found the article so well written. It was a joy to read, notwithstanding the grim topic.

The New Yorker's climate coverage is fantastic and terrifying. Look for articles by Elizabeth Kolbert, particularly the one's she did back in '05 - The Climate of Man I, II and III

Re: The Great Siberian Thaw

#54

Post by abathur »

kragen wrote: post #40
abathur wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem, as I try to breadcrumb when I find these (most-recently in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29218174 ) isn't necessarily the technology--it's the people. It's a complex adaptive system where different regions/countries have already drawn their own geologic, solar, and atmospheric straws. Just because PV and wind are pushing back fossil fuels at market rates now doesn't mean entrenched fossil-fuel-dep…

There are surely economic niches where fossil fuels will survive for much longer than the 8–16-year transition period I'm talking about, for example in submarines and circumpolar research stations, but I think the picture for fossil fuels is considerably less rosy than you suggest. Burning fossil fuels requires not only continuing operational expenses to extract them from the ground but also capital expenditures to b…

I don't disagree on the price signals, but this is the logic of corporations with assets, liabilities, cash flows, investors, boards, etc.

It isn't necessarily the same as the logic of nation-states sitting on finite resources that may, from some point, only fall in total value.

Or the logic of money launderers, who are perfectly willing to make terrible deals in order to convert undesirable resources into desirable ones.

Re: The Great Siberian Thaw

#55

Post by yakshaving_jgt »

lmilcin wrote: post #30
kragen wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The gases being released aren't toxic until a hundred times higher than current levels. Filtering out methane and CO₂ is routine for life-support systems in submarines, spacecraft, and, yes, bunkers, so it's not infeasible. The problem is that they cause global warming, not toxicity, and we can't build an isolated sealed compound to protect the planet from them.

> The gases being released aren't toxic until a hundred times higher than current levels. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Current atmospheric CO2 level is 400ppm which already has a measurable impact on performance on tasks (compared to 250ppm couple decades ago). Increasing it to just 1000ppm further degrades performance. And 2500ppm makes it difficult to concentrate on anything complex. Even…

As a casual observer trying to follow the conversation and learn more, I would prefer to hear just the facts with the data to support it, rather than the personal attacks regardless of whether you think they’re fair or not.

Re: The Great Siberian Thaw

#56

Post by yakshaving_jgt »

ed25519FUUU wrote: post #28
xrd wrote: post #23

Is it possible to live in isolated sealed compounds that protect us from all that carbon? Can we build filtration systems?

If only we could invent some kind of living organisms which consume CO2 and emit oxygen! (Sorry, it’s a little snarky!) I’m all seriousness, earth seems to find a balance when it goes through these types of events. Whether we’ll make it through the ride is to be seen.

The sarcasm is fine, but I have no sense of whether or not the point is even valid. Do you have any back of the napkin maths to illustrate how effective covering the Earth’s land masses in trees would be, even if we could terraform all the big deserts? Planting a load of trees is at least actionable, but I wonder if it’s also futile.

Re: The Great Siberian Thaw

#57

Post by thriftwy »

AtlasBarfed wrote: post #47
Retric wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s probably a significantly more difficult problem than stopping pollution as you actually need someone to pay for it directly. And of course we don’t know a good way to only try and cool the Arctic. You can ballpark this yourself a 288 K black body in equilibrium is radiating as much energy as it receives, at T^4. To drop that by 1C to 287K means blocking 1- ( 287^4 /288^4) or roughly 1.4% of all sunlight. As th…

Why does every solar geoengineering project seem to pretend that decreasing solar radiation wouldn't impact photosynthesis which also binds CO2, and, uh, supports the entire food web / our civilization? We already are massively stressing the biosphere: mass extinctions, mass destruction of habitat, mass disruption of migration patterns, warming, plastic pollution, invasive species. And the suggestion is to reduce inc…

Photosynthesis is more limited by water than sunlight in many areas. So it may make sense to cool some subtropical areas.

Re: The Great Siberian Thaw

#58

Post by vbezhenar »

yakshaving_jgt wrote: post #56
ed25519FUUU wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If only we could invent some kind of living organisms which consume CO2 and emit oxygen! (Sorry, it’s a little snarky!) I’m all seriousness, earth seems to find a balance when it goes through these types of events. Whether we’ll make it through the ride is to be seen.

The sarcasm is fine, but I have no sense of whether or not the point is even valid. Do you have any back of the napkin maths to illustrate how effective covering the Earth’s land masses in trees would be, even if we could terraform all the big deserts? Planting a load of trees is at least actionable, but I wonder if it’s also futile.

Phytoplankton is what makes oxygen from CO2. Trees actually do not add much. IMO we should bioengineer phytoplankton to allow it to grow faster, so our oceans will just turn more CO2 into O2 and solve that issue.

Re: The Great Siberian Thaw

#59

Post by mariusor »

vbezhenar wrote: post #58
yakshaving_jgt wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sarcasm is fine, but I have no sense of whether or not the point is even valid. Do you have any back of the napkin maths to illustrate how effective covering the Earth’s land masses in trees would be, even if we could terraform all the big deserts? Planting a load of trees is at least actionable, but I wonder if it’s also futile.

Phytoplankton is what makes oxygen from CO2. Trees actually do not add much. IMO we should bioengineer phytoplankton to allow it to grow faster, so our oceans will just turn more CO2 into O2 and solve that issue.

... and in the process destabilize every other ecosystem in the ocean? I think that's a dangerous direction to go into without further insights into what kind unintended consequences there might be.

Re: The Great Siberian Thaw

#60

Post by yakshaving_jgt »

vbezhenar wrote: post #58
yakshaving_jgt wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sarcasm is fine, but I have no sense of whether or not the point is even valid. Do you have any back of the napkin maths to illustrate how effective covering the Earth’s land masses in trees would be, even if we could terraform all the big deserts? Planting a load of trees is at least actionable, but I wonder if it’s also futile.

Phytoplankton is what makes oxygen from CO2. Trees actually do not add much. IMO we should bioengineer phytoplankton to allow it to grow faster, so our oceans will just turn more CO2 into O2 and solve that issue.

I still have no sense of how feasible or efficacious that might be.
Post reply on HN