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

171–179 of 179 posts

Re: Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

#171

Post by lutusp »

patrickg_zill wrote: post #168
lutusp wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument was that the fish in the Pacific aren't safe to eat. That argument is false. Because of Fukushima, Germany has decided to abandon nuclear power entirely. The German's aren't stupid --- they recognize what Fukushima means, i.e. nuclear power is incredibly difficult to make safe, and to an increasing number of people, simply not worth the risk. As a result, Germany is becoming a pioneer in alternative ener…

What facts do you have? More than TEPCO or the Japanese government, who are now admitting that they don't know anything and don't know when they will have the radiation leaks controlled? Are you reading what I actually wrote?

I linked to the facts. You posted opinions. You do know the word "science", yes? And that modern times are steered by evidence, not opinion?

> Are you reading what I actually wrote?

Are you reading what I have linked to? Are you prepared to challenge your own fantasies?

Re: Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

#172

Post by Mithaldu »

lutusp wrote: post #163
Mithaldu wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This doesn't take the Population Paradox into account. Because it's bullshit. The core of it is this statement: > Insensitive, unintelligent, uncompassionate listeners don't -- they will have the usual number of children. It entirely ignores the fact that having children and rearing them is WORK, EFFORT. People in poor countries do the work for a single reason: They NEED their kids to care for them in old age. As y…

> As you remove this need, even dumb people will want to avoid having kids, because it's less work. Yes, that explains why people who lived in the early agricultural societies, who had easy lives, also had a lot of children. It explains why, today, those with the highest birthrate end up becoming the majority, consistent with the principles of natural selection. You need to realize something about natural selection -…

> early agricultural societies

When, where?

Also, your links only affirm what i already said. People with a perceived lack in the "secure future" department have more children.

Lastly, i never said overpopulation isn't a thing. It's unclear why you quote wikipedia.

Re: Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

#173

Post by patrickg_zill »

lutusp wrote: post #171
patrickg_zill wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What facts do you have? More than TEPCO or the Japanese government, who are now admitting that they don't know anything and don't know when they will have the radiation leaks controlled? Are you reading what I actually wrote?

I linked to the facts. You posted opinions. You do know the word "science", yes? And that modern times are steered by evidence, not opinion? > Are you reading what I actually wrote? Are you reading what I have linked to? Are you prepared to challenge your own fantasies?

Your view seems to be that Fukushima is an event that occurred and is now past, with measurable or predictable results.

I disagree with that view, and view Fukushima as an event that is ongoing, and will continue to be ongoing until radiation from all sources is no longer entering the environment.

Re: Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

#174

Post by Mithaldu »

lutusp wrote: post #163
Mithaldu wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This doesn't take the Population Paradox into account. Because it's bullshit. The core of it is this statement: > Insensitive, unintelligent, uncompassionate listeners don't -- they will have the usual number of children. It entirely ignores the fact that having children and rearing them is WORK, EFFORT. People in poor countries do the work for a single reason: They NEED their kids to care for them in old age. As y…

> As you remove this need, even dumb people will want to avoid having kids, because it's less work. Yes, that explains why people who lived in the early agricultural societies, who had easy lives, also had a lot of children. It explains why, today, those with the highest birthrate end up becoming the majority, consistent with the principles of natural selection. You need to realize something about natural selection -…

Actually, you know what. Let me present more compelling evidence. That first article you link mentions concerns about Yemen's growth. So let's contrast how Yemen is doing in comparison to the USA with this Gapminder graph:

http://goo.gl/ok9irQ

Do note that the trails both start in 1960 and the child mortality axis is scaled logarithmically, meaning that at any time Yemen's child mortality was an order of magnitude larger than that of the USA. Also note that you can switch child mortality with expected lifespan and get pretty much the same curve.

Re: Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

#175

Post by refurb »

Steko wrote: post #164
refurb wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, but what would need to happen to demonstrate that global warming is not happening? If the warming stopped or reversed over a 5 year period? 10? 20? 50? Never?

"to demonstrate that global warming is not happening? If the warming stopped or reversed" You can't stop/reverse something that's not happening, that's not even coherent. If it's not happening you need better data showing it isn't happening or reasons why the current data is being massively misread. If, all else being equal[1], global warming is happening and then stopped/reversed without anthropogenic carbon emissio…

* You can't stop/reverse something that's not happening, that's not even coherent. *

No need to get hostile. I was referring to two possible outcomes: (1) global warming was never occurring (2) global warming was happening, but for what ever reason stopped or even reversed.

Make sense now?

Re: Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

#176

Post by waps »

plorkyeran wrote: post #154
waps wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I don't get is the other part of this statement. Acids, by definition, contain chemical energy that can be harvested by life. What is the basis for the assumption that any ocean acidification won't suddenly disappear, because some algae species decided it is now sufficiently widespread and easy to acquire to use it for lunch ?

That is not necessarily any less catastrophic.

The whole reason to do anything about the acidification is that it's "not natural". Nature adapting to changing circumstances is the very definition of what nature is. You can't have it both ways.

Plus it won't be catastrophic at all. Some very low-level species, like algae, will adapt by changing their internal chemistry. And because we eat them (through intermediaries) we will have effectively adapted too.

And don't you believe in evolution ? If this doesn't happen, then we die, and in that case we should die. The whole point of creation is that it adapts to these sort of things. Adapt or die. Works on a large scale as well as a small one.

Re: Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

#177

Post by snowwrestler »

waps wrote: post #176
plorkyeran wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not necessarily any less catastrophic.

The whole reason to do anything about the acidification is that it's "not natural". Nature adapting to changing circumstances is the very definition of what nature is. You can't have it both ways. Plus it won't be catastrophic at all. Some very low-level species, like algae, will adapt by changing their internal chemistry. And because we eat them (through intermediaries) we will have effectively adapted too. And don'…

That is not the reason to worry about acidification. The reason is that we like coral reefs, and don't want them to die out. Not only are they beautiful, they are great sources of biodiversity (good for research), and they protect many sea-level human installations like shipping harbors and city waterfronts.

Re: Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

#178

Post by [deleted] »

Steko wrote: post #164
refurb wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, but what would need to happen to demonstrate that global warming is not happening? If the warming stopped or reversed over a 5 year period? 10? 20? 50? Never?

"to demonstrate that global warming is not happening? If the warming stopped or reversed" You can't stop/reverse something that's not happening, that's not even coherent. If it's not happening you need better data showing it isn't happening or reasons why the current data is being massively misread. If, all else being equal[1], global warming is happening and then stopped/reversed without anthropogenic carbon emissio…

[deleted]

Re: Sea Change – The Pacific's Perilous Turn

#179

Post by pilom »

b1daly wrote: post #130
pilom wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Decrease your transportation needs. Running a gasoline vehicle for 1 second produces more CO2 than turning off all of the zombie loads in your house. Move closer to work so your commute is shorter and you'll cut your carbon footprint more than any other thing you could do.

Over what time!

Sorry, 1 second of idle has more CO2 emissions than 1 day without zombie loads.
Post reply on HN