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

Climate change is not just about Carbon Dioxide

papers.ssrn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 36 posts

Re: Climate change is not just about Carbon Dioxide

#11

Post by lapetitejort »

OtomotO wrote: post #7
cmckn wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The linked PDF is not so much a "paper" as it is a mid-tier web article, IMO. Another claim seems plausible, but is kind of hilariously hand-waved: > 90% of our oxygen comes from the oceans and more than 90% of our carbon dioxide ends up in the oceans. This figure [which figure?] is usually reported as 50%, but 90% is more accurate.

Make science more approachable, they said... now it's not sciency enough!

When the oceans finally boil away, we can firmly lay the blame on scientists for being a few percentage points off of their predictions.

Re: Climate change is not just about Carbon Dioxide

#12

Post by el_nahual »

mikekij wrote: post #3

"pH will drop to pH7.95 by 2045, and most marine life in our oceans dissolve." As someone who considers themselves an environmentalist, I find this sort of language to have a net-negative impact on our collective cause. The paper fails to provide comprehensive evidence for the idea that a pH change of 0.08 will result in all carbonate-based marine life dissolving. When 2045 comes, and the coral still exists, our popu…

As a counterpoint to the idea that "alarmism" is counterproductive:

There are many of us who believe, by looking at the trends of arctic methane release, that runaway warming is now inescapable. (As a sidenote, arctic methane was for a long time were not even considered in IPCC reports, and many deposits are still not being considered today).

20 years ago there was a vocal minority that was saying "we must have drastic change NOW. If we de not act now we will be doomed." The IPCC and many departments thought that such drastic, alarmist language, would be counterproductive.

And nothing really changed and we are now, perhaps, doomed. Perhaps those alarmists were right.

It is of course impossible to prove the counterfactual of "what would have happened if we had been more alarmists 20 years ago?". But what we do know is that the tempered course of action we did take was almost certainly not enough.

* It goes without saying, but 20 years ago was 2002. Post google, post ipod. Basically the current age, not like, the 1970s or something, even though it may feel that way.

Re: Climate change is not just about Carbon Dioxide

#13

Post by 0xbadc0de5 »

The trouble with the climate change lobby (aside from the paid /lobbyists/ and entrenched profit motives) is that you can only cry wolf so many times and make so many wildly hyperbolic and/or hypocritical claims before well-intentioned people start to question the whole narrative.

Don't get me wrong - I'd prefer not to find out what sort of negative impact climate change may have. I just think the current messaging isn't doing them any favors.

Re: Climate change is not just about Carbon Dioxide

#14

Post by 300bps »

Supermancho wrote: post #5
mikekij wrote: post #3

"pH will drop to pH7.95 by 2045, and most marine life in our oceans dissolve." As someone who considers themselves an environmentalist, I find this sort of language to have a net-negative impact on our collective cause. The paper fails to provide comprehensive evidence for the idea that a pH change of 0.08 will result in all carbonate-based marine life dissolving. When 2045 comes, and the coral still exists, our popu…

> When 2045 comes, and the coral still exists, It won't exist in the ocean. This language is accurate, based on what we know, and appropriately conclusive. I opened the article hoping it highlighted the most immediate problem (ocean acidification) and I was not disappointed. The plastic, yeah it's bad, but it's not going to kill off most sea life.

pH will drop to pH7.95 by 2045, and most marine life in our oceans dissolve.

Coral dissolving I can understand. But the article seems to be saying “most marine life” which gives me images of sharks and tuna dissolving.

I see three options:

1. The article misspoke

2. The article is wrong

3. The article is using some statistic I’m unaware of to be technically correct

Any help to assist me in understanding what he meant appreciated!

Re: Climate change is not just about Carbon Dioxide

#15

Post by OtomotO »

lapetitejort wrote: post #11
OtomotO wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Make science more approachable, they said... now it's not sciency enough!

When the oceans finally boil away, we can firmly lay the blame on scientists for being a few percentage points off of their predictions.

"You said they would boil in 2040... it's 2039 now! I thought we had more time! You tricked us all. YOU DOOMED US ALL!"

Re: Climate change is not just about Carbon Dioxide

#16

Post by hammock »

Summary:

The primary greenhouse gas is not CO2, its water vapour (>50% of all the atmospheric greenhouse gases)

Marine plants keep water vapor from getting out of hand.

Pollution that makes its way to the ocean, like toxic waste, oil and oil-based chemicals doesn't get "diluted" - it stays on the surface and emulsifies and can even be concentrated into microplastics.

The marine life then consumes these toxins, leading to their demise and death.

The decline of marine life leads to greater water vapor (greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere.

Re: Climate change is not just about Carbon Dioxide

#17

Post by d3m0t3p »

If the article seems mid-tier web article, it's because it's a summary of https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4099018.

But even the "full" article seems weird.

I'm not a native english speaker, but these sound wrong:

> "This report will be followed by a detailed reported include the observed data from 13 sailing vessels and over 500 data points across the Atlantic Ocean."

> "We are biologists and perhaps we think differently to other professions."

You mean than ?

> "marine plankton form the root[...]"

forms ?

> The legend of figure ?? (yea not numbered) says "Particles in 100ml of seawater from the middle of the Atlantic".

It's not ideal to reproduce the experiment, because not everyone knows where the middle is !

Their findings sounds alarming, especially this :

>"peer reviewed literature shows we have lost more than 50% of all life in the oceans, but from own plankton sampling activity and other observations, we consider that losses closer to 90%[...]"

I think people on the field usualy have better insight than academics but i cannot trust such a poorly written article.

Re: Climate change is not just about Carbon Dioxide

#18

Post by buscoquadnary »

0xbadc0de5 wrote: post #13

The trouble with the climate change lobby (aside from the paid /lobbyists/ and entrenched profit motives) is that you can only cry wolf so many times and make so many wildly hyperbolic and/or hypocritical claims before well-intentioned people start to question the whole narrative. Don't get me wrong - I'd prefer not to find out what sort of negative impact climate change may have. I just think the current messaging i…

So this is not meant as a criticism of climate change or an opposition or anything like that but honestly a lot of the climate change doomsayers seem very similar to me like religious apocalyptics in a lot of ways.

There is a huge impending end of the world catastrophe coming soon because so many people are living their lives wrong, the only way to stop or change that is to make massive personal changes in your life and do everything within your influence to convince everyone you know to change their lives or else the end is nigh!

I mean really that messaging is pretty much the same between fundamentalists of both the religious and climate variety. It often seems as well they are less interested in figuring out actual realistic solutions to these problems than feeling smugly superior because they are "one of the chosen".

Just my 2c.

Re: Climate change is not just about Carbon Dioxide

#19

Post by d3m0t3p »

300bps wrote: post #14
Supermancho wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When 2045 comes, and the coral still exists, It won't exist in the ocean. This language is accurate, based on what we know, and appropriately conclusive. I opened the article hoping it highlighted the most immediate problem (ocean acidification) and I was not disappointed. The plastic, yeah it's bad, but it's not going to kill off most sea life.

pH will drop to pH7.95 by 2045, and most marine life in our oceans dissolve. Coral dissolving I can understand. But the article seems to be saying “most marine life” which gives me images of sharks and tuna dissolving. I see three options: 1. The article misspoke 2. The article is wrong 3. The article is using some statistic I’m unaware of to be technically correct Any help to assist me in understanding what he meant…

it might be that: if you count the mass of marine life, most of it is from the tiny animals. Just like there is more insects than humans. Therefore, most of the marine life is dead if you kill most of the plankton. And because it's the "root of the food chain", most of everything dies
Post reply on HN