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

The world may have less time than it thinks on climate change

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 176 posts

Re: The world may have less time than it thinks on climate change

#121

Post by anonymousiam »

metabagel wrote: post #42
unsupp0rted wrote: post #31

I’m not sure: when I was in high school / university it was well understood that places like Florida would be under water and unlivable by now. Already then you could find this exact article title in a dozen publications per year, especially in academic publications. Al Gore made a third career out of it. It was alarmist and too soon then but it’s not alarmist and too soon now? Nobody upvotes an article titled “Thing…

> I’m not sure: when I was in high school / university it was well understood that places like Florida would be under water and unlivable by now. I don't doubt that is your recollection, but nobody back then was predicting it would happen in 20 years. The time frames given were much longer. But, the vibe was definitely that we need to wake up and do something right now, because by the time climate change hits real ha…

Some were predicting it, and those predictions got a lot of publicity.

https://www.breitbart.com/environment/2019/09/20/nolte-clima...

Re: The world may have less time than it thinks on climate change

#122

Post by anon7000 »

Panino wrote: post #115
dgellow wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Population decline will not solve climate change, we already passed multiple points of no return that will result in worsening climate for the next 50-100y. And there won’t be a way to roll back those changes

> And there won’t be a way to roll back those changes It's possible to sequester CO2, and here are a couple ways. 1. Use permaculture or regenerative agriculture to aggressively increase SOM (soil organic matter) / carbon content of the soil. Typical degraded farmland is around 1.5% SOM. For every 0.1% increase per acre, roughly 1 ton of carbon is sequestered. Setting an ambitious increase to 10% would take decades b…

Not saying you’re wrong, but sequestering CO2 probably isn’t enough. Ecosystems are connected systems and can be resilient in the long term, but a domino can fall that has a huge, negative impact on everything downstream.

For example, coral reefs provide protection and a vibrant home for a lot of sea life. But when the water gets a couple degrees too warm, it can essentially die, and when it does, the rest of the ecosystem disappears too.

Imagine if you were a human and your body temp was even a couple degrees above normal. You’d have a fever.

And these are only tiny examples… life finds away, but it also needs time to grow back.

Re: The world may have less time than it thinks on climate change

#123

Post by thec0d3 »

Panino wrote: post #120
downrightmike wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but the easiest wins are to reduce the main polluters: Richest 1% emit as much planet-heating pollution as two-thirds of humanity https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/richest-1-emit-much-...

We need to do everything, no buts.

Stop buying personal iPhones, TVs, logoff HN to reduce demand for new servers as they die...

Sure we can say the rich peoples businesses make the mess but their efforts are broadly consumed

Any day now right HN? Gonna stop spinning up consumer SaaS apps in the cloud propping up demand beyond need for logistics and healthcare research?

Re: The world may have less time than it thinks on climate change

#124

Post by dghlsakjg »

jmclnx wrote: post #21
dghlsakjg wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should look into the economist a bit more. For one, they have no advertisers to keep happy. Edit: I stand corrected. A better way to phrase it is that their business model does not rely on advertising, and they traditionally did not run ads until recently.

I remember that mag with that name from the 80s seeing it on news stands. Is this a different one and the other one closed ?

No. Same one.

Their business model is basically selling business intelligence. The magazine is for publicity, although subscriber revenue is significant.

Re: The world may have less time than it thinks on climate change

#127

Post by bryanlarsen »

Marsymars wrote: post #72
unsupp0rted wrote: post #31

I’m not sure: when I was in high school / university it was well understood that places like Florida would be under water and unlivable by now. Already then you could find this exact article title in a dozen publications per year, especially in academic publications. Al Gore made a third career out of it. It was alarmist and too soon then but it’s not alarmist and too soon now? Nobody upvotes an article titled “Thing…

> I’m not sure: when I was in high school / university it was well understood that places like Florida would be under water and unlivable by now. This doesn't seem plausible - the worst-case predictions for sea level rise by the end of the century are around 2m. That would certainly be bad for Florida, but like 80% of the population lives higher than 2m above sea level, so it certainly wouldn't be unliveable .

Thwaites Glacier and the glaciers locked behind it are predicted to raise sea levels by 3 metres in the next 50 years. And that's just one source -- it doesn't include Greenland's glaciers, other parts of Antarctica, and the expansion effect of warming the ocean water.

Florida is particularly vulnerable because it's porous. We could build sea walls around NYC to protect it, but that wouldn't work well for Florida.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5wB2ur1S2w

Re: The world may have less time than it thinks on climate change

#128

Post by tim333 »

cautiouscat wrote: post #29

I recognize this is deeply cynical and definitely doomerist. What can I as an individual actually do to stop this? Why should I even bother reading articles like this at this point? I can't do anything. I can't action it. I can collect my recycling, pop solar panels on my roof and be the most carbon footprint conscious person and it wouldn't move the needle an atom's width. Politicians don't care, and the ones that d…

I guess you people can post publicly suggesting we improve things. If everyone did that there would be consensus to make changes.

On a personal level I also plan to get aircon which may not help the planet but may help me.

Re: The world may have less time than it thinks on climate change

#129

Post by saddat »

talon8635 wrote: post #73

Birth rates are in decline. The global population is estimated to peak in the 2080s. I suspect that could be later than reality as the endless doom (like this article) inspires more and more people to not have kids. Then as the population declines precipitously, nature takes back over and begins resolving the problem itself.

Rich countries population declines , so much as a win from Club of Rome. Yet poor countries don’t care

Re: The world may have less time than it thinks on climate change

#130

Post by mncharity »

mncharity wrote: post #113
cautiouscat wrote: post #29

I recognize this is deeply cynical and definitely doomerist. What can I as an individual actually do to stop this? Why should I even bother reading articles like this at this point? I can't do anything. I can't action it. I can collect my recycling, pop solar panels on my roof and be the most carbon footprint conscious person and it wouldn't move the needle an atom's width. Politicians don't care, and the ones that d…

Just a thought, which at T+36 min hasn't been mentioned yet. Many systems are chaotic. At particular points in state space , a very small delta can result in very different subsequent trajectories. Viral influence being one example. I'm reminded of Tamim Ansary's email[1] to 20 odd friends after 9-11, that went massively viral ("We come now to the question of bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age. Trouble is, tha…

An contrasting addendum: Most causal chains^H roots are deep and hairy, and most roles are supporting roles, rather than a principal with clear story impact. That friend who forwarded Ansary's email onward.

So maybe your question prompts some response here, which the author or someone then improves upon when this topic rolls around again, which someday affects a list Claude generates when someone asks it to aggregate "What can I do?" ideas from the web, which ... who knows? But better the question was asked than not. And better the responses are novel and insightful and compelling, than not. And better our discussion here refines those ideas, than not. No?

"Better", in some hopeful but poorly-instrumented fuzzy-metric sense. Which is a difficulty. Whether it's worth the opportunity cost of however else you might be spending your time this evening... perhaps better this topic/thread, than at least some others?

Post reply on HN