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

NASA Scientists Suggest We’ve Been Underestimating Sea Level Rise

motherboard.vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 247 posts

Re: NASA Scientists Suggest We’ve Been Underestimating Sea Level Rise

#121

Post by merlincorey »

Shivetya wrote: post #115
WillPostForFood wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, people have been saying that for last few decades, and the bad news hasn't had much impact.

It is always in how the numbers are used, cherry picking by both sides. However the real take away here is that they figured out they were wrong yet again. Of course they lean towards the more extreme each time but even some publications indicate that Antarctic changes are due to natural variability. Then lets play with sea rise, the fear is always that some islands will wash away and port towns will be at further ri…

>In other words, the climate does change but we don't know all the variables and people's whose very jobs depend on income from both studying it and "fixing it" (read : GE) will always push the numbers that support their side. Just like big oil will try to claim that oil isn't the leading cause; its cows btw.

Potentially, not anymore!

http://modernfarmer.com/2016/10/seaweed-livestock-methane-em...

Re: NASA Scientists Suggest We’ve Been Underestimating Sea Level Rise

#122

Post by guard-of-terra »

tajen wrote: post #111
Xylakant wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't own a car - not entirely for ecologic reasons, but that's one of them. I do most of my short-distance trips by bicycle, I'll use a car-sharing offer when I need to transport heavy stuff, though I currently consider buying a cargo bike to replace that use. I'm in the fortunate position that this is possible for me since I live in the city, have proper public transport, can walk to the supermarket and in a pinc…

> I'm in the fortunate position that this is possible for me since I live in the city I can't approve. You've made the choice. You've paid for this choice. People keep claiming that I'm lucky to live close from my work and not have children. I was a choice, and blaming it on chance undervalues the effort we make (i.e. paying twice the price for housing and/or only choosing among jobs within a certain radius of public…

We had meat and heating before petrol, why would you expect it to go away?

Are you in California by chance? Because you seem to ignore the fact that large part of already-inhabitated world is unlivable without heating (and, possibly, meat). Canada, Scandinavian countries, Russia, even then Germany and Poland, and as south as Bosnia.

It's as if you were thinking that warm countries becoming unlivable is tragedy, but cold countries becoming unlivable is desired.

Re: NASA Scientists Suggest We’ve Been Underestimating Sea Level Rise

#123

Post by AlgorithmicTime »

dagss wrote: post #97
refurb wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason why the US is ~16 times higher in CO2 output is.... the US produces ~15 times more by GDP (2.45T vs. 0.17 T). It's not like American's are just sitting there burning coal for the fun of it. It's being used to make stuff.

How does "making stuff" make it any better? Making (and consuming) stuff is the problem we are talking about. One needs to stop making stuff.

Ok, you go tell everyone that they can no longer be prosperous, and must live a more drab, crappy existence.

Re: NASA Scientists Suggest We’ve Been Underestimating Sea Level Rise

#124

Post by andy_ppp »

Arnt wrote: post #117
andy_ppp wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the margin of error is greater than the discovered difference? And because of that it could actually be lower not higher? Strange.

The old number had a margin of error too. It's not strange, just a sign of thorough math. What they say is approximately "1.5-1.9 with values near 1.7 being most likely", so in layspeak and round numbers, the chance that actual number is higher is 90% and that it's lower is 10%.

Great, thanks for clarifying that.

Re: NASA Scientists Suggest We’ve Been Underestimating Sea Level Rise

#125

Post by Hondor »

BurningFrog wrote: post #64

Have you noticed how you hear about 100 reports about how things may be worse than we though, for each report about the opposite? This says nothing about science, and a lot about what stories get people's attention.

Yea, it's disappointing how biased the reporting is. I suspect the science is almost as biased. Even the papers that do show that things aren't as bad as we thought find some way to say "Don't worry, it's still bad!"

Re: NASA Scientists Suggest We’ve Been Underestimating Sea Level Rise

#126

Post by jfoutz »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #72
M_Grey wrote: post #11

I suspect that we can expect a lot of bad news to emerge over the next few decades, as the promise of climate change becomes the reality of climate change.

On the other hand, people have been saying that for last few decades, and the bad news hasn't had much impact.

The whole hurricane thing sucks though. They'll happen no matter what you do, of course. It does seem like we have some influence over how many bonus bullets we want to put in the gun while playing russian roulette.

Re: NASA Scientists Suggest We’ve Been Underestimating Sea Level Rise

#127

Post by awi »

dagss wrote: post #97
refurb wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason why the US is ~16 times higher in CO2 output is.... the US produces ~15 times more by GDP (2.45T vs. 0.17 T). It's not like American's are just sitting there burning coal for the fun of it. It's being used to make stuff.

How does "making stuff" make it any better? Making (and consuming) stuff is the problem we are talking about. One needs to stop making stuff.

That is definitely not the problem. And that way of thinking is what leads to despair and helplessness, because we will never stop making and consuming.

Apart from a very few things (cement, steel, ammonia), producing things does not directly release any C02. What we need to do is stop burning fossil fuels to produce and consume energy. And that is already happening now. The biggest question is how fast can we make the transition and how much have we already fucked up.

Re: NASA Scientists Suggest We’ve Been Underestimating Sea Level Rise

#128

Post by raphman »

neilsharma wrote: post #108

Slight tangent, but how does one with SWE/product skills get involved in climate work? There seems to be some research every other day indicating how disastrous global warming is going to be, but a dearth of jobs outside of solar installation or academia.

if you haven't already seen it: Bret Victor offering some thoughts on "How do you think the tech community (startup community, or any community) can contribute to tech and/or policy solutions on a global scale?" - http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/

Re: NASA Scientists Suggest We’ve Been Underestimating Sea Level Rise

#129

Post by dagss »

refurb wrote: post #57
flukus wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The goal is to not sit on or arses while we wait for people who already produce less CO2 than us to reduce their usage.

The real measure should be CO2 output per unit of GDP. We still need to make stuff, so if you're going to release CO2, it better be an efficient use of it.

We're already making a lot more stuff than what is needed (consider half of food is thrown away as food waste). What economies are fighting each other about these days is not so much availability of resources, as being the one who gets to make and sell in order to produce income.

Morally, it matters who makes things. The countries with high GDP who are responsible for the current extra CO2 in the atmosphere could always (you know, in theoretical fantasy-land) help out to make sure others produce as efficiently but reap the benefits. Instead of using the argument you make to pull up the living-standard ladder behind them.

Re: NASA Scientists Suggest We’ve Been Underestimating Sea Level Rise

#130

Post by dagss »

awi wrote: post #127
dagss wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does "making stuff" make it any better? Making (and consuming) stuff is the problem we are talking about. One needs to stop making stuff.

That is definitely not the problem. And that way of thinking is what leads to despair and helplessness, because we will never stop making and consuming. Apart from a very few things (cement, steel, ammonia), producing things does not directly release any C02. What we need to do is stop burning fossil fuels to produce and consume energy. And that is already happening now. The biggest question is how fast can we make t…

You forgot meat, which stands for 10% or so of CO2 emissions [1] (and that isn't needed at all, compare meat consumption in the west with global average). And I'd consider "travel" a product too, I'm sure it factors into GDP which was the metric under discussion.

You are right, the biggest question is how fast we can make the transition. In considering that question, you can't dismiss lifestyle changes (=current overproduction and overconsumption) as a tool a priori, and say that only options that don't affect lifestyle can be considered.

Consider the lifestyle changes done by a population during a war. A lot of the production and consumption today happens so that people have a workplace to go to, not because it's actually needed, as in a physical necessity.

(I am not sure what you mean by direct vs indirect emission or why it matters; but the primary purpose of reducing production would of course be to reduce energy use, because one is not able to switch over to green fast enough.)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_p...

Post reply on HN