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

Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

apps.seattletimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 179 posts

Re: Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

#111

Post by graeme »

zeteo wrote: post #103
revscat wrote: post #7

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. It dwarfs all other problems -- Syria, terrorism, the NSA, class and economic disparity, all of them. Being technologists we tend to assume (hope?) that some solution will present itself before it is too late. I am growing increasingly pessimistic that su…

You may be too emotionally committed to listen to any skepticism, but for whatever it's worth: 1. Your language ("sin", "evil", "believe") indicates a major subjective component in what you're saying. As with everything subjective, you're probably aware that it's not provable with cold facts and logic, and it might justifiably be rejected by others' own subjectivity and take on facts. 2. A pervading feeling that the…

Why do you say it's not falsifiable to say the world is warming? We can measure temperature over time, as well as factors such as net energy entering the atmosphere.

(I can't find the source for the last one, but remember James Hanson mentioning it. Anyone know what I'm referring to)

Similarly, a factor such as carbonization of the oceans is very falsifiable. And experiments can measure the impacts on species individually.

We can't be certain about the future, but it seems like a fallacy to say that therefore worry is unjustified and Manichean. From my read of the evidence we've never faced a situation so objectively dire.

Re: Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

#112

Post by indefatigable »

anthonyarroyo wrote: post #110
indefatigable wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stewardship means handing it over to fascists?

exqueeze me?

When someone says they have the right to dictate not only how much energy I use, but also where that energy comes from, I call it fascism.

Re: Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

#113

Post by zevyoura »

JonFish85 wrote: post #24
revscat wrote: post #7

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. It dwarfs all other problems -- Syria, terrorism, the NSA, class and economic disparity, all of them. Being technologists we tend to assume (hope?) that some solution will present itself before it is too late. I am growing increasingly pessimistic that su…

> I don't think humanity will survive into the 22nd century Well that's a dumb thing to say. Have you been going to barbecues with Harold Camping? It'll be a different place in 87 years, sure. But humanity will be doing just fine, unless some whackjob launches off some nuclear weapons.

Even if nuclear winter took place, it seems unlikely to me that humanity would literally go extinct. We're an incredibly resilient species.

Re: Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

#114

Post by lutusp »

indefatigable wrote: post #70
lutusp wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Being technologists we tend to assume (hope?) that some solution will present itself before it is too late. I have some bad news: * The problem isn't pollution and CO2 release, at last not directly. The problem is the number of people doing the polluting and CO2 releasing. * A solution would be to have a smaller worldwide birthrate. Easy to say. * But any solution to the above point is very likely to collide with e…

Someone laments the fact that we're all doomed and wants to upend the social order, then someone else replies with a casual implication that population control would be an effective remedy. What a surprise.

> then someone else replies with a casual implication that population control would be an effective remedy.

I hope you aren't talking about me. Population growth is the problem, but there is no solution, at least not one that civilized people would or should accept.

Maybe you should read my first post again. I don't wave my hands at population as though control is an easily applied remedy -- I state it as an insoluble problem.

Re: Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

#115

Post by indefatigable »

graeme wrote: post #111
zeteo wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may be too emotionally committed to listen to any skepticism, but for whatever it's worth: 1. Your language ("sin", "evil", "believe") indicates a major subjective component in what you're saying. As with everything subjective, you're probably aware that it's not provable with cold facts and logic, and it might justifiably be rejected by others' own subjectivity and take on facts. 2. A pervading feeling that the…

Why do you say it's not falsifiable to say the world is warming? We can measure temperature over time, as well as factors such as net energy entering the atmosphere. (I can't find the source for the last one, but remember James Hanson mentioning it. Anyone know what I'm referring to) Similarly, a factor such as carbonization of the oceans is very falsifiable. And experiments can measure the impacts on species individ…

What situation would falsify the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming? Or the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic ocean acidification?

Re: Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

#116

Post by zevyoura »

ridicter wrote: post #61
revscat wrote: post #7

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. It dwarfs all other problems -- Syria, terrorism, the NSA, class and economic disparity, all of them. Being technologists we tend to assume (hope?) that some solution will present itself before it is too late. I am growing increasingly pessimistic that su…

If you're looking for a direct way to get involved in addressing climate change, check out 350.org. 350 was started by Bill McKibben, the author and environmentalist who first wrote about global warming in 1989. 350 is what scientists consider the safe upper limit to CO2 PPM in the atmosphere. There are local chapters all over--I'm involved in the Portland one. I deal with the struggle you mentioned all the time. In…

For reference, we are currently at approximately 394 ppm [0]

[0]http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html

Re: Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

#117

Post by indefatigable »

lutusp wrote: post #114
indefatigable wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone laments the fact that we're all doomed and wants to upend the social order, then someone else replies with a casual implication that population control would be an effective remedy. What a surprise.

> then someone else replies with a casual implication that population control would be an effective remedy. I hope you aren't talking about me. Population growth is the problem, but there is no solution, at least not one that civilized people would or should accept. Maybe you should read my first post again. I don't wave my hands at population as though control is an easily applied remedy -- I state it as an insolubl…

OK that's good to hear. But read about the history of eugenics if you'd like to know how other people might misinterpret your argument.

Re: Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

#118

Post by zeteo »

graeme wrote: post #111
zeteo wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may be too emotionally committed to listen to any skepticism, but for whatever it's worth: 1. Your language ("sin", "evil", "believe") indicates a major subjective component in what you're saying. As with everything subjective, you're probably aware that it's not provable with cold facts and logic, and it might justifiably be rejected by others' own subjectivity and take on facts. 2. A pervading feeling that the…

Why do you say it's not falsifiable to say the world is warming? We can measure temperature over time, as well as factors such as net energy entering the atmosphere. (I can't find the source for the last one, but remember James Hanson mentioning it. Anyone know what I'm referring to) Similarly, a factor such as carbonization of the oceans is very falsifiable. And experiments can measure the impacts on species individ…

"It's warming" is not falsifiable because any immediate developments can always be written off. An actual scientific statement is on the lines of "using methodology X, the recorded temperature next year will be between Y and Z". The climate models were scientific in this respect, but they did not predict events accurately. So the scientific certainty is simply not there, and it's all down to subjective interpretation on both sides.

Re: Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

#119

Post by snowwrestler »

indefatigable wrote: post #115
graeme wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you say it's not falsifiable to say the world is warming? We can measure temperature over time, as well as factors such as net energy entering the atmosphere. (I can't find the source for the last one, but remember James Hanson mentioning it. Anyone know what I'm referring to) Similarly, a factor such as carbonization of the oceans is very falsifiable. And experiments can measure the impacts on species individ…

What situation would falsify the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming? Or the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic ocean acidification?

Those are not two theories; they are more like complimentary consequences.

The ocean absorbs excess CO2 from the atmosphere. If it absorbs it as fast as we produce it, there will not be any warming, but a lot of acidification.

If it absorbs it much more slowly, then there will be a lot of warming but little acidification. The truth is somewhere in between.

Re: Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

#120

Post by jonnathanson »

YZF wrote: post #86
jonnathanson wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wa…

It may have been true that our lives as hunter-gatherers were better in many respects. But the problem is that civilization inevitably defeated hunting and gathering. And it always tends to, throughout the course of human history. Major technological advancement seems inevitably to outcompete the alternatives. While that advancement may or may not produce better outcomes, it always wins out. (For poignant examples, see: "Guns, Germs & Steel," "Why the West Rules (For Now)," and other large-scale historical analyses of this topic).

This doesn't mean Dr. Harari's point is invalid, but it may mean that the point is moot in praxis. We can't return to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, so the only practical alternative is to continue on the technology treadmill, even if it diminishes quality of life in various ways. Over the last 30,000+ years, we don't seem to have found a way around this issue.

Post reply on HN