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

Xkcd: Greenhouse Effect

xkcd.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 286 posts

Re: Xkcd: Greenhouse Effect

#141

Post by FrustratedMonky »

CM30 wrote: post #67
rcbdev wrote: post #3

Mere ~30 years after discovering the Greenhouse Effect we managed to split the atom, harnessing heretofore unimaginable amounts of energy. Yet almost 100 years later, here we are - Oil and gas dependent, boasting an energy and climate crisis, all the while fooling regulators with worthless climate certificates, unaccountable off-shore factories and just plain rampant fraud when it comes to CO2 emissions.

Unfortunately, nuclear seems to get a bad rep from a lot of people. I suspect this is because of a mixture of things: 1. The rare instances of it going wrong look catastrophic, while the many times it does better than coal/oil/gas go ignored. Kinda like how people fear plane travel more than driving, despite the former being far safer than the latter. 2. It's more expensive to setup, so there's an economic incentive…

"Unfortunately, nuclear seems to get a bad rep from a lot of people."

Well, there was Chernobyl.

Then Fukushima.

I'm all for Nuclear. But I think humans have shown repeatedly they can't really handle it.

So think the trepidation is justified.

But, I am hoping with all the technology advances in last 50 years, maybe Nuclear can be made safe. If we do learn from past.

Re: Xkcd: Greenhouse Effect

#142

Post by Cheer2171 »

Winse wrote: post #135

As with most large scale changes...there are winners and losers. New species and extinctions. High CO2 is great for plants in my greenhouse...I suppose that's why it is called a greenhouse gas. Anyone longing for lower CO2 levels in our entire atmosphere is basically an anti-Canadian Agriculture bigot. Seriously though sometimes the cure is much worse than just handling the issues one at a time as we transition to a…

> Seriously though sometimes the cure is much worse than just handling the issues one at a time as we transition to a beautiful warm catastrophe/boon.

This is a disgusting attitude. I'm sure you'll be safe in Alberta while Bangladesh drowns. Your ancestors benefitted from the industrial revolution, and now you want to reap all the benefits of climate change?

Re: Xkcd: Greenhouse Effect

#143

Post by FrustratedMonky »

tompccs wrote: post #95
rcbdev wrote: post #3

Mere ~30 years after discovering the Greenhouse Effect we managed to split the atom, harnessing heretofore unimaginable amounts of energy. Yet almost 100 years later, here we are - Oil and gas dependent, boasting an energy and climate crisis, all the while fooling regulators with worthless climate certificates, unaccountable off-shore factories and just plain rampant fraud when it comes to CO2 emissions.

Environmental activists are almost entirely responsible for the killing of nuclear energy in the 1970s. Much of the blame for climate change lays at their feet.

Yeah, lets blame Global Warming on the environmentalist.

Even though the Nuclear Industry was super powerful. Those little environmentalist toook it doowwwwn.

Chernobyl and Fukushima and failings of the industry were completely un-related.

Wonder why if environmentalist are so strong, they can't take on fossil fuel?

Re: Xkcd: Greenhouse Effect

#144

Post by breakyerself »

ejb999 wrote: post #100
unglaublich wrote: post #88

And people keep wondering why climate protesters are not asking things "nicely" anymore, and resort to blocking traffic and defacing paintings. They tried the nice way... they tried for many decades.

yea, because destroying famous works of art and blocking traffic, really helps bring people over to your side....

I'd prefer to see them damage fossil fuel infrastructure, but they aren't actually damaging these paintings. They're specifically targeting works with glass over them. It's more of a symbolic defacing.

Re: Xkcd: Greenhouse Effect

#145

Post by odiroot »

perfunctory wrote: post #114
tompccs wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Environmental activists are almost entirely responsible for the killing of nuclear energy in the 1970s. Much of the blame for climate change lays at their feet.

Funny how environmental activists were powerful enough to kill the nuclear energy but not the fossil one.

Guess which state earns a lot on Europe staying with fossil fuels but not much if we go all nuclear?

Re: Xkcd: Greenhouse Effect

#146

Post by acdha »

Winse wrote: post #135

As with most large scale changes...there are winners and losers. New species and extinctions. High CO2 is great for plants in my greenhouse...I suppose that's why it is called a greenhouse gas. Anyone longing for lower CO2 levels in our entire atmosphere is basically an anti-Canadian Agriculture bigot. Seriously though sometimes the cure is much worse than just handling the issues one at a time as we transition to a…

The problem is timing: the past shifts were spread out over many thousands of years, which gave ecosystems time to adjust, and humanity has made many ecosystems less resilient with our expansion and pollution. We also have the practical problem that we have billions of people now living – it does not help someone in Africa getting unprecedented droughts to know that a farmer in Canada is seeing 20% better yields, especially since lost income means they can’t afford to import that extra food.

Similarly, the trending on peak heats means that there are places where many people live which are becoming less survivable. Theoretically India could migrate people to Siberia but the political implications of something like that are orders of magnitude worse than reducing emissions.

Re: Xkcd: Greenhouse Effect

#147

Post by cs702 »

kibwen wrote: post #134
cs702 wrote: post #128

As this brilliant cartoon points out, we've had 128 years of warnings about human-induced climate change, and over all those years, humanity did not change course. That's because warnings and exhortations rarely accomplish anything. Things tend to change only after there's no other choice, i.e., when there's a crisis . There's an insightful quote from Milton Friedman on this: "Only a crisis -- actual or perceived --…

> Warnings and exhortations never accomplish anything. Except that warnings and exhortations did accomplish the result of causing nations to begin banning CFCs back in 1987, well before the hole in the ozone layer became a global crisis.

Yes. I edited my comment to replace "never" with "rarely," which more closely reflects what I meant to write the first time around. Thank you!

Re: Xkcd: Greenhouse Effect

#148

Post by breakyerself »

richrichie wrote: post #18

[flagged]

The planet is warming more than 20X the rate of warming seen through natural processes. There is a unplanned, uncontrolled, planetary scale experiment underway with the chemical and thermal properties of the atmosphere and oceans of the only planet available to us for our survival. The burden of proof is on anyone who wants to continue that experiment to demonstrate that it's safe.

Re: Xkcd: Greenhouse Effect

#149

Post by atonse »

FrustratedMonky wrote: post #141
CM30 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, nuclear seems to get a bad rep from a lot of people. I suspect this is because of a mixture of things: 1. The rare instances of it going wrong look catastrophic, while the many times it does better than coal/oil/gas go ignored. Kinda like how people fear plane travel more than driving, despite the former being far safer than the latter. 2. It's more expensive to setup, so there's an economic incentive…

"Unfortunately, nuclear seems to get a bad rep from a lot of people." Well, there was Chernobyl. Then Fukushima. I'm all for Nuclear. But I think humans have shown repeatedly they can't really handle it. So think the trepidation is justified. But, I am hoping with all the technology advances in last 50 years, maybe Nuclear can be made safe. If we do learn from past.

As far as I know though, Chernobyl and Fukushima had completely different reasons and don't really clump together apart from "both were meltdowns"

Chernobyl was entirely a product of design compromises due to cost savings, combined by a totalitarian system suppressing the known impact of those design decisions. It was also a much older design.

Fukushima also seemed like a design mistake (I remember reading it that the generators or something like that were flooded with water) , but then caused by a natural disaster and flooding.

The nuclear plans (in on paper at least) we have now as a result of decades of additional knowledge, and are way more safe. Combined with the fact that we have incredible computing firepower to better simulate scenarios, all this has convinced me to feel much better about the prospect of nuclear power plants and their safety.

Re: Xkcd: Greenhouse Effect

#150

Post by rpozarickij »

The sad reality is that the humanity probably needs some type of big climate-related event that would act as a wake up call when it comes to the urgency of climate change. We need something that people can relate to with their senses or emotions. Data by itself can only get us so far.
Post reply on HN