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

Climate change is hitting the planet faster than scientists originally thought

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 147 posts

Re: Climate change is hitting the planet faster than scientists originally thought

#131

Post by Ekaros »

RobertRoberts wrote: post #4

1) The worst polluters are countries like China and India and 3rd world countries that dump trash directly into the ocean. 2) But... it's "PER CAPITA" pollution that is the _actual_ problem. 3) ??? But then we stop right before the truth is that the 1% are the biggest polluters on the planet. https://phys.org/news/2020-09-richest-emissions-poorest-anal... https://inhabitat.com/1-of-global-population-causes-50-of-al..…

When I read specially people from USA complaining that China is now the number one polluter I'm like duh, shouldn't they be? They have in absolute terms most population and they are also taking care of massive cut of manufacturing...

Re: Climate change is hitting the planet faster than scientists originally thought

#132

Post by wbsss4412 »

seiferteric wrote: post #127
wbsss4412 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can is a matter of a small handful of people making a decision. Calling that wishful is abdicating responsibility. The point is we aren’t powerless, we just love acting like we are.

I am really not trying to discourage anyone, and agree policy solutions should be tried, just trying to point out that actually getting this things done, especially globally will be really really hard, possibly as hard or harder than technological solutions, which is why I find accusations of techno-optimism a bit rich/naive. > Calling that wishful is abdicating responsibility. It is not abdicating responsibly if you…

> Also many of the suggested policy solutions I think are far to tame even, it will take a lot more than that to avoid disaster I think. Literately going back a century or two in standard of living probably at this point.

Why do you believe this to be the case?

It seems like a lot of your pessimism is due to the fact that you think we would have to dramatically cut our standard of living if we don’t find technological solutions. I don’t believe this has basis.

Re: Climate change is hitting the planet faster than scientists originally thought

#133

Post by rilezg »

RappingBoomer wrote: post #124

one huge problem is that the corp-gov-media monolith has adopted climate change as an official narrative. (it used to be called 'global warming' and then it was changed to 'climate change' after detractors started pointing out that we still had lots of cold weather just like before). And once the corp-gov-media monolith has adopted something as an official narrative, virtually no dissent will be brooked. Everyone mus…

Interesting. Why do you think the corp-gov-media monolith has adopted climate change as an official narrative? Was there a preponderance of scientific evidence preceding this adoption, or some other motive?

From my perspective, the dominant corp-gov-media narrative is that the economy (as measured by the Dow Jones Industrial Average and/or GDP) must always become bigger, faster, and anyone who suggests actions that run contrary to this goal are not taken seriously by the corp-gov-media monolith, including those concerned about climate change.

Re: Climate change is hitting the planet faster than scientists originally thought

#134

Post by seiferteric »

wbsss4412 wrote: post #132
seiferteric wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am really not trying to discourage anyone, and agree policy solutions should be tried, just trying to point out that actually getting this things done, especially globally will be really really hard, possibly as hard or harder than technological solutions, which is why I find accusations of techno-optimism a bit rich/naive. > Calling that wishful is abdicating responsibility. It is not abdicating responsibly if you…

> Also many of the suggested policy solutions I think are far to tame even, it will take a lot more than that to avoid disaster I think. Literately going back a century or two in standard of living probably at this point. Why do you believe this to be the case? It seems like a lot of your pessimism is due to the fact that you think we would have to dramatically cut our standard of living if we don’t find technologica…

I mean the article we are commenting on is literally about climate change hitting faster than expected. IPCC reports are known to be very conservative.

Re: Climate change is hitting the planet faster than scientists originally thought

#135

Post by germinalphrase »

seiferteric wrote: post #92
wbsss4412 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not optimism, it’s about where the solution lies. In one case we are wishing for a solution to fall out of some genuis minds. In the other we are taking responsibility for changing behavior which we have control over. That’s not optimism, it’s pragmatism.

> In the other we are taking responsibility for changing behavior which we have control over. Okay, propose concrete actions, political, legal even military if needed that you think will help accomplish this and could actually work globally?

The obvious solution is to change one’s self such that other people aspire to be similar.

If our lives and cities appeal to people in other countries, they may adopt our technologies, urban designs, and social policies. Part of it is development. Part of it is marketing.

Re: Climate change is hitting the planet faster than scientists originally thought

#136

Post by wbsss4412 »

seiferteric wrote: post #134
wbsss4412 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also many of the suggested policy solutions I think are far to tame even, it will take a lot more than that to avoid disaster I think. Literately going back a century or two in standard of living probably at this point. Why do you believe this to be the case? It seems like a lot of your pessimism is due to the fact that you think we would have to dramatically cut our standard of living if we don’t find technologica…

I mean the article we are commenting on is literally about climate change hitting faster than expected. IPCC reports are known to be very conservative.

That isn’t really answering the question.

The question is, is there inherently a massive trade off between our living standards and addressing climate, given there is no substantial change in our level of technology (you said we’d need to go backwards 2 centuries).

If we “magically” implemented political solutions with proper urgency, does that necessarily entail a massive drop in living standards in your mind?

Re: Climate change is hitting the planet faster than scientists originally thought

#137

Post by seiferteric »

seiferteric wrote: post #134
wbsss4412 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also many of the suggested policy solutions I think are far to tame even, it will take a lot more than that to avoid disaster I think. Literately going back a century or two in standard of living probably at this point. Why do you believe this to be the case? It seems like a lot of your pessimism is due to the fact that you think we would have to dramatically cut our standard of living if we don’t find technologica…

I mean the article we are commenting on is literally about climate change hitting faster than expected. IPCC reports are known to be very conservative.

Think we hit the comment nesting limit so replying here.

From what I know, we can't release any more carbon and in fact might need to go carbon negative, so to do that we would need to essentially shut down everything that emits carbon... Cars, trucks, cargo ships, trains, airplanes, eliminate animal agriculture, no more steel or concrete production, all coal, gas oil power production and many other industries would need to shut down.

So yes, I think it would have quite a drastic effect on our standard of living. Some of these things in some parts of the world may someday become carbon neutral, but it will take a long time.

Re: Climate change is hitting the planet faster than scientists originally thought

#138

Post by datavirtue »

norcon4 wrote: post #79
datavirtue wrote: post #39

The Arctic is thawing very rapidly. Thawing permafrost is loaded with organic matter that is generating methane (several factors greater impact than CO2) and spewing it into the atmosphere. As more methane is released the temperature increases faster, spurring an exponential spiral that is greatly outrunning the previous "doomsday" models. These sea level rising and other global weather impacts are no longer predicti…

The clathrate gun hypothesis this is referencing has been largely discredited. I'm not familiar with the science, but I trust the researchers who say there are good thermodynamic reasons the clathrate deposits in the arctic will probably not suddenly destabilize. That being said, we should be absolutely be terrified of this because we're not certain clathrate destabilization is off the table. Plus, thawing permafrost…

Nothing in my comment was in reference to the clathrate hypothesis. My comment was about methane production that is actually occurring due to ancient organic matter that is/was frozen that is now fermenting as the permafrost thaws. In the Arctic circle the land is belching out huge quantities of methane right now. Pockets have formed and exploded, sending bedrock flying a half mile in each direction. Lakes are bubbling out methane profusely. You can poke a hole in the ground and lite a fire.

100% fact.

Re: Climate change is hitting the planet faster than scientists originally thought

#139

Post by RobertRoberts »

munificent wrote: post #117
RobertRoberts wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You cleverly avoided the topic "scientific consensus" by changing the discussion to "science" as a broader (oddly undefinable) concept. Don't you think it's a risky argument to present something as black and white as facts (science is supposed to be based on them almost exclusively in some areas) as merely a concept of group imagination? Assuming there is no psychological perspective to be argued, surely a factual, p…

> You cleverly avoided the topic "scientific consensus" by changing the discussion to "science" as a broader (oddly undefinable) concept. I believe the two are essentially synonymous. "Scentific consensus" is what most scientists agree is true. "Science" is the process people use to define who is a scientist and what that consensus is. > Don't you think it's a risky argument to present something as black and white as…

> I believe the two are essentially synonymous.

science = pursuit of truth

consensus = a group agrees on a something

These can be diametrically opposed. So how do you reconcile this potential for conflict? Keeping in mind that there is rift in society right now where groups use both science and consensus as a rhetorical or verbal bludgeon to win arguments.

Re: Climate change is hitting the planet faster than scientists originally thought

#140

Post by wbsss4412 »

seiferteric wrote: post #137
seiferteric wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean the article we are commenting on is literally about climate change hitting faster than expected. IPCC reports are known to be very conservative.

Think we hit the comment nesting limit so replying here. From what I know, we can't release any more carbon and in fact might need to go carbon negative, so to do that we would need to essentially shut down everything that emits carbon... Cars, trucks, cargo ships, trains, airplanes, eliminate animal agriculture, no more steel or concrete production, all coal, gas oil power production and many other industries would…

If you frame the conversation that way then yes, there is zero way to meet that standard. You might as well not even try.

Addressing climate change isn’t about being perfect at this point, it’s about averting ever increasing disaster scenarios, especially since the degree of the effects seems to be exponential with the amount of warming we see.

All I see from so many people is the feeling that we might as well not even try/it’s all a waste of time.

Post reply on HN