Live data from Hacker News

Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries

science.org

11–20 of 183 posts

Re: Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries

#11
post #5

How is something critical if it has been transgressed and we are still alive? Or on the very first moment every single one is past we all suddenly die?

This is looking at changes over a scale of centuries, and the potentially irreversible effects of what we are doing right now.

> Had Earth system remained forced by 1988 conditions (350 ppm and 85%/50%/85% of tropical/temperate/boreal forest cover remaining), the simulations show that temperature over the global land surface would not have increased by more than an additional 0.6°C in the subsequent 800 years

> If climate and land system change can be halted at 450 ppm and forest cover retained at 60%/30%/60% of boreal/temperate/tropical natural cover, then the simulation indicates a mean temperature rise over land of 1.4°C by 2100 (in addition to 0.7°C between preindustrial time and 1988) and 1.9°C after 800 years as vegetation evolves in a warmer climate

The latter is an optimistic projection assuming we will do more to stop climate change, the paper goes further into the odds of a >3C increase.

To put that in context, a 1.5°C increase in average temperature is considered a doomsday scenario where wildfires and storms ravage the earth, killing over half of the global population.

Re: Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries

#12
post #8
post #5

How is something critical if it has been transgressed and we are still alive? Or on the very first moment every single one is past we all suddenly die?

Ha, good point, let's not focus on the main issue and instead argue semantics shall we... /s To ELI5 like you seem to prefer, the iceberg breaching the hull of the Titanic seems like a critical transgression, but the ship stayed afloat another hour or so...

If the main issue is not semantic, how would you characterize it?

Re: Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries

#14
post #5

How is something critical if it has been transgressed and we are still alive? Or on the very first moment every single one is past we all suddenly die?

Echoing the kind of climate change scenario 5 year old kids have seems kind of cruel the week thousands of people in Libya died of events that are exasperated by the climate crisis. People are already dying of climate related causes, like crop failures and natural distasters.

Re: Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries

#18
post #5

How is something critical if it has been transgressed and we are still alive? Or on the very first moment every single one is past we all suddenly die?

The article says:

> Boundary positions do not demarcate or predict singular threshold shifts in Earth system state. They are placed at a level where the available evidence suggests that further perturbation of the individual process could potentially lead to systemic planetary change by altering and fundamentally reshaping the dynamics and spatiotemporal patterns of geosphere-biosphere interactions and their feedbacks

Probably would need to read more to get a clear understanding of exactly what they mean and how they're defined, but it sounds like we're to an unstable place. Perhaps somewhat analogous to skating on thin ice: you may not have haven't broken through yet, but you're in a spot where a break could happen at any moment and from any movement.

Re: Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries

#19
post #14
post #5

How is something critical if it has been transgressed and we are still alive? Or on the very first moment every single one is past we all suddenly die?

Echoing the kind of climate change scenario 5 year old kids have seems kind of cruel the week thousands of people in Libya died of events that are exasperated by the climate crisis. People are already dying of climate related causes, like crop failures and natural distasters.

Man-made dams broke.

Re: Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries

#20
> Clearly, it is in humanity's best interest to...

Herein lies the problem. What happens to the environment is not governed by "humanity's best interest", it's governed by whomever has the most power and the biggest stick. These entities act in their own best interest.

To the Chinese government, more factories = more money = more power = good. To the US government, more military equipment = more power = good. At the executive level of either organization one would be laughed out of the room for suggesting environmental issues should take priority over national security.

But it's not just two countries, it's every single country making these types of decisions for 100+ years... And if $country doesn't build that weapons facility or export that labor, $otherCountry will, therefore $country will be at a disadvantage. Repeat ad infitium.

Those in power are far more concerned with maintaining and leveraging that power than they are with "humanity's best interest".

Post reply on HN