Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn • Hacker News Board

Re: Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

#81

Post by baddox » Fri, Sep 13, 2013, 10:31 PM UTC

mikeyouse wrote: post #49

rickjames28 wrote: post #32

Like many who visit HN, I am an atheist. I am coming to believe, however, that the production of CO2 is the greatest sin, in the religious sense, that exists today Yes, global warming has become the religion of leftists.

This is such a ridiculous statement. Leftists like Bill Gates, Newt Gingrich, John Hunstman, Frederick Smith, Susan Collins, Tim Pawlenty? Cap and Trade was a free-market republican idea originally [1], but now that it's being advocated by the 'Leftists', it's become much more politicized. A plurality of scientists agree that steps should be taken, the FUD denial is all paid for by a dozen companies who stand to prof…

He didn't say only leftists.

Re: Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

#82

Post by yk » Fri, Sep 13, 2013, 10:36 PM UTC

moocowduckquack wrote: post #53

yk wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need something like half of the Sahara to produce the global primary energy consumption from solar panels alone. [1] ( Or the next few largest deserts combined.) So this is certainly not easy, but it is on the scale of doable. On the other hand, there are reasons why no one has ever tried to finance a nuclear power plant out of his own pockets, it is basically a bet on the interest rate of the next 30 years. ( An…

[1] 100 TW primary energy An article by MIT claims 14TW - http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/energy-scale-part1-1024.h... - and I've seen figures from 12TW to 20TW bandied around and I tend to use 18TW when running the numbers, but I have never seen an estimate as high as 100TW. Where's that figure from?

Ups, good catch. It is from a old blog post from myself [1]. The reasoning was 10 billion people, with first world energy needs ( 10 kW). The alternative to use this number is, that you get a safety factor of 6 to account for using solar as baseload, weather and everything else that dissipates energy.

Edit: Additionally, the power of solar panels used is for England, not the Sahara. The purpose of the posting was essentially a back of the envelope calculation with pessimistic assumptions.

[1] http://yoshi-k.de/2008/09/die-plausibilitat-der-solarenergie... ( German)

Re: Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

#83

Post by indefatigable » Fri, Sep 13, 2013, 10:38 PM UTC

yetanotherphd wrote: post #80

indefatigable wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Giving politicians the authority to levy a carbon tax is an absolutely terrible idea, and it has nothing to do with how I feel about China.

I believe that the idea that China is obstructing a global carbon tax (among supporters of such a tax) mainly comes from racism and is not supported by the facts. However, people oppose global/national carbon taxes for a number of reasons unrelated to racism. I'm not sure why you are concerned with the authority to levy a carbon tax, since (1) such a tax would almost certainly be beneficial and (2) politicians alread…

We seem to disagree, as I'm convinced that a carbon tax would almost certainly be an unmitigated disaster.

Re: Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

#84

Post by MartinCron » Fri, Sep 13, 2013, 10:39 PM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #78

MartinCron wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one group of humans has a monopoly of being 100% free from bullshitters. There's a large group of mostly silent atheists who are perfectly reasonable, just as there are groups of less-silent lunatics.

True enough, but this observation cuts both ways. There are also large groups of mostly-silent religious people who are perfectly reasonable, to a point. Like the atheists, however, many religions allow the prudentialists, perfectionists, and guilt-trippers to shit all over the place. No thanks, to both of them.

Serious question: if you're not a believer and you're not a nonbeliever, where did you wind up?

Re: Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

#85

Post by steveplace » Fri, Sep 13, 2013, 10:40 PM UTC

baddox wrote: post #76

revscat wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know who that is. Insofar as humanity's long-term survival goes, though, no I do not think it is by any means a sure thing. The rate of CO2 emissions increases every year, parallel to the population. The "whackjobs" that are attacking are those who produce and profit from fossil fuels production and consumption. They already exist, and are not some far off, imaginary threat.

Where are you getting this data?

The rate of change is pretty constant

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/02/1166704/-CO2-Emissi...

Re: Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

#86

Post by YZF » Fri, Sep 13, 2013, 10:45 PM UTC

jonnathanson wrote: post #48

YZF wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone else here doing Coursera's A Brief History of Humankind course? Sadly human history is that of destroying and changing the environment, unintended consequences, and constant failure to improve the human condition. I'm not sure removing the power structure will fix this, what is going to happen when those are removed? At least in some places in the world the power structures are all that stand between individua…

In a really twisted way, that's what makes Agent Smith's speech in The Matrix so interesting. The one about how humanity is "a virus" destroying the world. At the time the movie came out, that whole spiel felt like overblown, James Bond villain-esque speechifying. These days it's almost starting to sound like a halfway reasonable analogy. While I disagree that we've failed "to improve the human condition," I do think…

But all of us have been in situations where we say to ourselves: "this is event E going to force us to confront with X, Y, Z" only to see E go by and people exhibiting cognitive dissonance. It's not hard to imagine very significant transformations of our environment with people still refusing to accept responsibility and adjust our course of action. Dr. Harari makes the argument that our lives as hunters-gatherers was in many respects much better than our lives post the agricultural revolution. For us in the middle/upper class of the world's population this is maybe untrue but we aren't representative of the entire world's population.

Re: Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

#87

Post by emil0r » Fri, Sep 13, 2013, 10:48 PM UTC

indefatigable wrote: post #33

rickjames28 wrote: post #32

Like many who visit HN, I am an atheist. I am coming to believe, however, that the production of CO2 is the greatest sin, in the religious sense, that exists today Yes, global warming has become the religion of leftists.

Someone famous once said something to the effect of: "When people believe in nothing, they will believe anything." Interestingly enough most of those people are completely in denial about their own irrational zealotry.

"One of the peculiar sins of the twentieth century which we've developed to a very high level is the sin of credulity. It has been said that when human beings stop believing in God they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse: they believe in anything."

Malcolm Muggeridge

Re: Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

#88

Post by vertr07 » Fri, Sep 13, 2013, 10:53 PM UTC

MartinCron wrote: post #84

jessaustin wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True enough, but this observation cuts both ways. There are also large groups of mostly-silent religious people who are perfectly reasonable, to a point. Like the atheists, however, many religions allow the prudentialists, perfectionists, and guilt-trippers to shit all over the place. No thanks, to both of them.

Serious question: if you're not a believer and you're not a nonbeliever, where did you wind up?

Nihilism?

Re: Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

#89

Post by vertr07 » Fri, Sep 13, 2013, 10:54 PM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #60

vertr07 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always find it funny when the religious claim that atheists are actually religious too and use that to dismiss them.

Laugh away, but I'm not religious at all, and the same bullshit that turned me away from religion also turns me away from atheism.

You can deny the categories all you want, but that doesn't mean you don't fall into one of them. Ideology does make a mess of things, but that doesn't mean that the causes gripped by ideology are incorrect. (On either side.)

Re: Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

#90

Post by vertr07 » Fri, Sep 13, 2013, 10:55 PM UTC

indefatigable wrote: post #66

vertr07 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think what you are referring to is: “He who stands for nothing will fall for anything.” ― Alexander Hamilton Nice try though.

Actually it seems like that's not the correct attribution. It was probably Peter Marshall: "Give to us clear vision that we may know where to stand and what to stand for—because unless we stand for something, we shall fall for anything."

Seems like he mixed a few quotes up to me. ;)