Live data from Hacker News

World surpasses key warming threshold across an entire year

cnbc.com

101–110 of 160 posts

Re: World surpasses key warming threshold across an entire year

#101

I'm a technological accelerationist simply because I'm certain, with the 30 years of warming baked in from this point + the impossibility of carbon emissions lowering on average anytime soon, the only way to save the world's species, our state and growth of civilization and such is through technological advances, AI, terraforming, etc. There's no hope simply through austerity, things are too screwed already.

Why can't humanity survive an increase in 10 degrees? I understand polar bears or other animals that need specific levels of Ice or vegetation in specific areas, but humans are an extremely adaptive species. Edit: I'm getting a lot of responses. It seems like there is a general misunderstanding of what happened during the previous ice age. Humans existed during the previous ice age and humanity survived a major incre…

Such an event would render swaths of the planet truly uninhabitable and much more land un-farmable. Humanity must abandon the tropics entirely. Every costal city is now 300 feet underwater. Billions die in mass migrations and wars on a scale hitherto unseen. The ecosystem of the planet is ravaged by this rapid change, being unable to evolve quickly enough to adapt. The life that remains is agriculture that directly sustains the few human survivors. Scientific progress halts entirely. The ultra-rich retreat into their enclaves while what remains of humanity regresses into Morlocks.

In short, 10 degrees should be regarded as apocalyptic. It would turn back human progress by millennia, and the state of planet would not return to "normal" for several millennia more, if ever. Perhaps for a century or two some outposts in greenland cling to survival but over the longest term, it's not clear if humanity can survive such conditions. Perhaps we can adapt to this terrible "new normal" but our ancestors will tell myths about "The Earth that Was". Their children will marvel at the idea that Earth once had "wildlife". They will tell cautionary tales about their foolish and near-sighted predecessors who had inherited a garden of eden and but destroyed it to fuel their insatiable appetites.

Re: World surpasses key warming threshold across an entire year

#102
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair to space exploration, Elon has by far the best bunker plan. He knows there are a couple decades left until shit really hits the fan. As you say bunkers on earth aren't all that promising, but what if you could make a self-sustaining colony on another planet, far away from societal collapse.

You know what's even less promising than a bunker on Earth? A bunker literally anywhere else in the observable universe. In fact, we could nuke the entire surface of the earth and it would probably still be easier to establish a self-sustaining colony on the resulting radioactive wasteland then on the Moon/Mars/Venus. There is a very good reason why Earth is, and will continue to, sustain a great diversity of life an…

Building a nice place on Earth to ride out climate change would be a lot simpler. But it also puts a massive target on your back. If society collapses, everyone will want in on your little Garden Eden, and no amount of fortification will be able to keep millions of people out. Nuking the entire surface of the Earth would solve that issue, but is generally frowned upon. Better to just build your bunker far, far away where most people can't get to it.

Re: World surpasses key warming threshold across an entire year

#103
post #68
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't like the word "drastic" here. It's very much less drastic than what we are already doing. In fact, it's much less drastic. I like to say: There is no longer a choice of playing God or not, only a choice of playing a competent or incompetent God.

You know what would be less drastic? Fucking stop emitting as much carbon. Solutions are there: Less livestock farming, less cars, less flights, less production of unnecessary products. Now, can we convince enough people to change their behavior just by telling them to do it? No, of course not. But what works really well is controlling people's behavior via consumer prices. This means, make animal products more expen…

Also, stop fossil fuel subsidies. Fossil fuels have many externalities in addition to climate change. Air pollution kills 10 million/year.

Global Fossil Fuel Subsidies Reached $7 Trillion in 2022, an All-Time High: https://e360.yale.edu/digest/fossil-fuel-subsidies-2022

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-10-16/climat...

Air Pollution Kills 10 Million People a Year. Why Do We Accept That as Normal? https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/08/opinion/environment/air-p...

Re: World surpasses key warming threshold across an entire year

#104
post #63
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

New technologies have not helped yet. Just covered part of increased demand. So it doesn't seem like technology is going to save us. It is all just distraction. Only way is one that will never happen: de-growth.

> New technologies have not helped yet. Just covered part of increased demand. So it doesn't seem like technology is going to save us. Those two statements are in direct conflict. Look at these two graphs, one for UK CO2 emissions [0] and the other for England's population [1] (Sorry I couldn't get a UK population graph, but to the best of my understanding they're proportional). Population is up 20%, CO2 emissions ar…

> If that's not technology helping, I don't know what it is.

That's called deindustrialisation and delocalisation

Re: World surpasses key warming threshold across an entire year

#105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The world isn't just a collection of independent climates. Surviving in one of today's extreme climates doesn't necessarily provide proof of surviving when the previous extreme is now the mildest climate. Even if the human body can take the heat, it still needs to be fed and watered. Those systems currently aren't in your climate, in many cases.

Humans live anywhere in the world with a average temperature range from -20 to 30 degrees. This is a range of 50 degrees. 10 degrees increase wont kill us.

Surely you understand that the danger that climate change poses is not "heat exhaustion"?

Re: World surpasses key warming threshold across an entire year

#106
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know what's even less promising than a bunker on Earth? A bunker literally anywhere else in the observable universe. In fact, we could nuke the entire surface of the earth and it would probably still be easier to establish a self-sustaining colony on the resulting radioactive wasteland then on the Moon/Mars/Venus. There is a very good reason why Earth is, and will continue to, sustain a great diversity of life an…

Building a nice place on Earth to ride out climate change would be a lot simpler. But it also puts a massive target on your back. If society collapses, everyone will want in on your little Garden Eden, and no amount of fortification will be able to keep millions of people out. Nuking the entire surface of the Earth would solve that issue, but is generally frowned upon. Better to just build your bunker far, far away w…

You see self-sustaining colonies outside of Earth in our lifetime? Wouldn't they need a massive industrial base, a variety of resources, large populations, etc to not need Earth?

Re: World surpasses key warming threshold across an entire year

#107
post #63
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

New technologies have not helped yet. Just covered part of increased demand. So it doesn't seem like technology is going to save us. It is all just distraction. Only way is one that will never happen: de-growth.

> New technologies have not helped yet. Just covered part of increased demand. So it doesn't seem like technology is going to save us. Those two statements are in direct conflict. Look at these two graphs, one for UK CO2 emissions [0] and the other for England's population [1] (Sorry I couldn't get a UK population graph, but to the best of my understanding they're proportional). Population is up 20%, CO2 emissions ar…

How much of that reduction is because we outsourced our production to different places on earth?

Re: World surpasses key warming threshold across an entire year

#108
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This won't work simply due to induced demand. We spend something like 2000x less energy per unit of light now than we did burning whale fat in the 1800s and all the energy saved energy simply goes into producing more light. Hoping for technology to solve this mess is the same as hoping that adding an additional lane to a congested highway will solve traffic. It won't.

That's just wrong on so many levels. First of all, creating light is irrelevant to the problem at hand. Secondly, LEDs have made your statement outright false as there's no one who lives in a house that packs their home with light enough to spend that energy budget AND KEEPS THEM ON AT NIGHT. Because they would GO BLIND. So that's just the light thing. 100% wrong. Saying technology can't solve the problem is speculat…

You might want to read about the rebound effect. If your toaster is 10% more efficient but you have twice as many toasters in the world you're still fucked, this is what we're doing right now.

This new faith in technology as the great redeemer is closer to religion than science. At best it's wishful thinking at worst it's delusional

Re: World surpasses key warming threshold across an entire year

#109
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The car one is the most frustrating for me just because global warming is but one of the many problems associated with car-only infrastructure in countries such as the United States. Your point about bunkers is kind of interesting. If society collapses the bunkers are really pointless. I think deep down the “rich people” building them know that. It’s just the same kind of silly doomsday prepping that regular folks do…

To be fair to space exploration, Elon has by far the best bunker plan. He knows there are a couple decades left until shit really hits the fan. As you say bunkers on earth aren't all that promising, but what if you could make a self-sustaining colony on another planet, far away from societal collapse.

Calling Mars our back-up planet is beyond foolish. If humans cannot manage Earth, they certainly cannot manage the airless, frozen radioactive desert that is Mars. Do you think that these Martian colonist will be substantially wiser than Earthicans? Consider Mr. Musk's recent behavior before you answer that question!

Re: World surpasses key warming threshold across an entire year

#110
post #68
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't like the word "drastic" here. It's very much less drastic than what we are already doing. In fact, it's much less drastic. I like to say: There is no longer a choice of playing God or not, only a choice of playing a competent or incompetent God.

You know what would be less drastic? Fucking stop emitting as much carbon. Solutions are there: Less livestock farming, less cars, less flights, less production of unnecessary products. Now, can we convince enough people to change their behavior just by telling them to do it? No, of course not. But what works really well is controlling people's behavior via consumer prices. This means, make animal products more expen…

People won't. They just won't.

Now what are you going to do? If your plan won't work with the humans we have, do you have a realistic plan to change the humans? No, you don't. So your plan won't work. It will not work.

So, are you going to stand on your soapbox blazing out your righteous indignation at the folly of humanity, or are you going to try to figure out something that will work with the humans that we have?

Post reply on HN