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

I used to not worry about climate change. Now I do [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 884 posts

Re: I used to not worry about climate change. Now I do [video]

#301

Post by adrianN »

pk-protect-ai wrote: post #145

I no longer worry. I'm extremely pessimistic about the impending climate change. I believe Sabine isn't pessimistic enough about what to anticipate. Consider the tundra methane emissions and the explosive release of methane-hydrates from the oceans, along with water vapor, a potent greenhouse gas. The disaster looming over all ecosystems (a mass extinction event) that will happen in decades and the doom-phase could l…

Humanity is quite resilient. I’m confident that we’ll survive. However I’m much more pessimistic about technological civilization surviving.

Re: I used to not worry about climate change. Now I do [video]

#302

Post by jdthedisciple »

alexvoda wrote: post #140

@dang Is it just my impression that HN is drifting rigtwards on this topic? I remember HN being more in favour of proactive action against anthropic climate change. This thread feels dominated by attitudes reflecting inaction.

And what if??

Why are you @-ing dang as if his job is to maintain some kind of particular consensus in order to ... idk, support some kind of political narrative? Hah!

Re: I used to not worry about climate change. Now I do [video]

#303

Post by ChatGTP »

127361 wrote: post #45

It's taboo to say this, but people worldwide have had far too many children, and I believe that overpopulation is the root of the sustainability crisis, including climate change and pollution. And that taboo is probably rooted in evolutionary psychology, people have a genetically driven tendency to criticize those who advocate having less children? So could there be an instinctual drive behind it? https://www.flashpa…

thought experiment, if the whole world migrated to nuclear energy and electric cars in the seventies would you still be touting the same rot ?

Re: I used to not worry about climate change. Now I do [video]

#305

Post by pk-protect-ai »

flir wrote: post #260
pk-protect-ai wrote: post #145

I no longer worry. I'm extremely pessimistic about the impending climate change. I believe Sabine isn't pessimistic enough about what to anticipate. Consider the tundra methane emissions and the explosive release of methane-hydrates from the oceans, along with water vapor, a potent greenhouse gas. The disaster looming over all ecosystems (a mass extinction event) that will happen in decades and the doom-phase could l…

> We can't colonize Greenland or Antarctica due to the lack of fertile soil Just on this example, you can physically pick soil up and move it. Enough for 9bn people? No. Enough for 100k? Yes.

I've thought about this as well. It's feasible to move soil only to certain regions. Greenland and Antarctica aren't among them (remember the ice shields; they will continue to scrape all the soil as they melt). Some islands in Antarctic Ocean could potentially sustain a population of 20-40k. However, you need to start moving the soil now, but you will also need to develop methods of preserving this soil until it is needed, because right now it will be useless and it will be eroded by wind and hydro factors. What might happen is a gradual migration towards the poles on the Americas and Eurasia, moving the soil as migration progresses. This will be bloody and ruthless. But none of these solutions take into account the "exponent", and there is no way to forecast if a Venus atmosphere scenario will occur or not due to the water vapor.

Edit: good point in the next comment, expect sea levels rising for at least 10m.

Re: I used to not worry about climate change. Now I do [video]

#306

Post by mytailorisrich »

dagss wrote: post #298
mytailorisrich wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is the global population. Obviously, that's the metric that matters for global issues like the climate and environment. The global population is still increasing. Furthermore, as poor countries develop this is compounded by increased consumption (both resources and energy) per capita. In that respect, "richest 1% account for more emissions than poorest 66%" should be interpreted as very worrying when the po…

> The issue is the global population. Obviously, that's the metric that matters for global issues like the climate and environment. No. "Obviously", the metric that matters is emissions. Or, the integral sum(person * emission of that person). When the emission per capita varies by a factors of 1000x, the distinction matters. Look, what if you could choose between: Option A: The 50% lowest polluting part of the world'…

Emissions are only one of the problems, the other being use of resources.

And both are a function of the population and are people get out of poverty use of energy and resources per capita only increases, compounding the overall impact, as already said.

If we were 500 million globally, for instance, we would not be having this discussion because there would be no problems.

I am not wrong, this is just a statement of fact. I am always surprised by this ostrich syndrome many have in absolutely refusing to consider that population is an issue, the key issue, even.

Re: I used to not worry about climate change. Now I do [video]

#307

Post by _y5hn »

flir wrote: post #263
_y5hn wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are correct: Daily Sea Surface Temperature (notice the new paradigm started in 2023 and extending into 2024): https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/ Daily Surface Air Temperature: https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/?dm_id=world Daily Sea Ice Extent (click on "Show Southern Hemisphere", also showing concerns of being low in 2023): https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/seaice/ The most shocking is the…

There's a good chance that the sudden bump in sea surface temperature is a consequence of us cleaning up marine diesel. Which is at least interesting, because it suggests we were doing geoengineering without even knowing it. (Random thought: what's the sulphur content of automotive diesel? I know it's cleaner, but there are so many more cars than boats. Could we see another sea surface temperature bump as we phase ou…

It could be that (removing sulphur from shipping fuel):

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/01/shipping...

It could be the underwater Tonga volcano erruption, which put alot of water into the atmosphere. Water is also a GHG.

https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/goddard/tonga-er...

It could be El Nino part of the ENSO-cycle in addition.

https://www.npr.org/2023/06/08/1181086972/el-nino-has-offici...

All these are temporary masking conditions. They also add to feedback effects, for increased warming. So could be partly accellerating heating as well.

I think some researchers are seeing accelleration in the overall trend. You can eyeball this with a ruler as well. Even though it might be too early to tell, it's hard to find any negative feedback loops to counter all these positive ones.

For cars, I think we'd probably see increase in surface temperature on land. People might care a bit more then. It could be removed from both gas and diesel. That would bring pollution down, but also remove aerosols currently masking effects from GHG.

https://www.futurity.org/potassium-fuel-sulfur-1369772-2/

UPDATE: As noted in another comment here. Car fuel is quite a bit different category than bunker fuel (heavy fuel oil). We might still observe "unmasking"-impacts if implemented generally though. We'd notice it more too, as the impact would be right where we use our cars.

Re: I used to not worry about climate change. Now I do [video]

#308

Post by latexr »

vasco wrote: post #181
mytailorisrich wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is the global population. Obviously, that's the metric that matters for global issues like the climate and environment. The global population is still increasing. Furthermore, as poor countries develop this is compounded by increased consumption (both resources and energy) per capita. In that respect, "richest 1% account for more emissions than poorest 66%" should be interpreted as very worrying when the po…

I never understand this argument of overpopulation. How can you be OK with reducing population but at the same time worry about global warming? To have that position you basically need to reconcile two positions that to me aren't really compatible, unless someone explains it to me. Either it's fine for Earth to not have humans and just exist peacefully with the rest of the ecosystem until another lifeform takes over.…

> if you care primarily about the humans, then how can the answer be to have less of them?

If you care about the well being of dogs, how can the answer be to have less of them crammed in your tiny apartment?

It’s about balance. It is not true that more of something is unambiguously good, for itself or the system as a whole.

You should read about how reintroducing wolves, a carnivore that kills other animals, made the Yellowstone ecosystem flourish.

https://www.yellowstonepark.com/things-to-do/wildlife/wolf-r...

Or the case of Macquarie Island.

https://archive.is/2020.10.21-044800/https://www.nytimes.com...

Or the deer of Manitou Island.

https://www.interlochenpublicradio.org/2022-03-04/unnatural-...

Or, or, or. We have tons of examples.

Re: I used to not worry about climate change. Now I do [video]

#309

Post by tzs »

127361 wrote: post #82
10xDev wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LOL. You wrote a comment on how India is the main problem not the west (either now flagged or deleted). You singled out a race as being the problem.

I didn't single out a specific race, I think, I just mentioned that it was that specific region of the world where the problem was located. As far as I'm aware it was nothing to do with discrimination because of a specific characteristic (which is the definition of racism). It was just that population growth in that region was very large combined with a high per-capita CO2 footprint. Many NGOs are actively trying to…

> It was just that population growth in that region was very large combined with a high per-capita CO2 footprint.

I can't find the comment in question, but if the person above is right when they said it was about India then you are wrong that they have a high per-capita CO2 footprint.

They are under 2 tons CO2 per person per year.

That's about 40% of the world average, 25% of the EU, 22% of China, and 13% of the US.

Post reply on HN