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

Climate-Related Death of Coral Around World Alarms Scientists

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–179 of 179 posts

Re: Climate-Related Death of Coral Around World Alarms Scientists

#171

Post by frankzinger »

Retric wrote: post #51
dmix wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cows and other animal agriculture contributes as much or more [1], to climate change than all cars and trucks. So eating less meat is one good way. > Livestock is responsible for 65% of all human-related emissions of nitrous oxide – a greenhouse gas with 296 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide, and which stays in the atmosphere for 150 years. -“Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Option…

Nitrous oxide and Methane both break down in the atmosphere. If we where starting from zero then sure they would both have a large impact but they are both in sufficient quantities that lot's of them are breaking down making the future contribution have a negotiable net effect.

> Nitrous oxide and Methane both break down in the atmosphere.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas:

"For example, the direct radiative effect of a mass of methane is about 72 times stronger than the same mass of carbon dioxide over a 20-year time frame[20] but it is present in much smaller concentrations so that its total direct radiative effect is smaller, in part due to its shorter atmospheric lifetime. On the other hand, in addition to its direct radiative impact, methane has a large, indirect radiative effect because it contributes to ozone formation. Shindell et al. (2005)[21] argue that the contribution to climate change from methane is at least double previous estimates as a result of this effect.[22]"

"Methane has an atmospheric lifetime of 12 ± 3 years. The 2007 IPCC report lists the GWP as 72 over a time scale of 20 years, 25 over 100 years and 7.6 over 500 years.[20] A 2014 analysis, however, states that although methane's initial impact is about 100 times greater than that of CO2, because of the shorter atmospheric lifetime, after six or seven decades, the impact of the two gases is about equal, and from then on methane's relative role continues to decline.[37] The decrease in GWP at longer times is because methane is degraded to water and CO2 through chemical reactions in the atmosphere."

Immediately following this last paragraph they show a table which says that carbon dioxide has a GWP (Global Warming Potential) of 1 over all time periods, while that of methane is 72 over 20 years, 25 over 100 years, and 7.6 over 500 years.

> If we where starting from zero then sure they would both have a large impact but they are both in sufficient quantities that lot's of them are breaking down making the future contribution have a negotiable net effect.

Maybe it's too early in the morning for me, but I don't understand the point you're trying to make here, and I am apparently not the only one. Care to clarify?

Re: Climate-Related Death of Coral Around World Alarms Scientists

#172

Post by lostcolony »

deciplex wrote: post #166
lostcolony wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait wait wait. Someone proposed the rhetorical question of "what politicians do you support" as one of the "ways you can affect climate change". The poster is not saying "You should vote (in a particular way)", nor even generalizing what positions the respective parties take, just that voting affects climate policy, which affects climate. The poster literally only said "the way you vote affects the way climate is ha…

You can talk about voting out politicians who endorse the TPP, or for that matter who want to wreck encryption and crater the economy, because these things have broad bipartisan support and so the only way to reverse that is to vote out everyone . Talk of tearing the whole system down or whatever is totally acceptable, even if (or maybe precisely because ) it's probably also unrealistic. However once a subject comes…

So are you saying that if it's a partisan position we're not allowed to post "voting can change things"; we can only post that if it's a bipartisan position? Because if not, you're in no way addressing the point I was raising.

Re: Climate-Related Death of Coral Around World Alarms Scientists

#173

Post by deciplex »

lostcolony wrote: post #172
deciplex wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can talk about voting out politicians who endorse the TPP, or for that matter who want to wreck encryption and crater the economy, because these things have broad bipartisan support and so the only way to reverse that is to vote out everyone . Talk of tearing the whole system down or whatever is totally acceptable, even if (or maybe precisely because ) it's probably also unrealistic. However once a subject comes…

So are you saying that if it's a partisan position we're not allowed to post "voting can change things"; we can only post that if it's a bipartisan position? Because if not, you're in no way addressing the point I was raising.

I'm saying that people get a lot more sensitive about "talking politics" when the positions of the two major parties are in pretty stark contrast and it's blindingly obvious they can't pull the usual "both sides are the same / equally bad / etc". At least, you can't really claim to support the GOP because you want to do something about climate change, only that you don't think it's important or don't think it's happening.

Contrast this with a lot of tech issues, where you can throw up your hands and claim the whole system is fucked, and that both sides have their faults in roughly equal proportion. You're not forced to think about the consequences of supporting one party or the other as much.

Re: Climate-Related Death of Coral Around World Alarms Scientists

#174

Post by guscost »

mikeash wrote: post #146
guscost wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I see nothing wrong with drilling an oil well on your own land. Yet drilling an oil well is currently illegal on a lot of private land in the US. > Where we have a problem is when you start spreading that oil, or stuff derived from it, in my air and water. Air and water pollution are regulated separately by another group. I don't have any problem with this kind of regulation unless it gets out of hand (classifying…

Why is preventing you from putting CO2 into other people's air "out of hand," and not common sense property rights?

Because we do it every time we exhale. Criminalizing breathing (or any policy that could be interpreted as such in the future) is way beyond "out of hand", it's the lowest form of fascist garbage I've ever seen during my time in America.

Re: Climate-Related Death of Coral Around World Alarms Scientists

#175

Post by mikeash »

guscost wrote: post #174
mikeash wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is preventing you from putting CO2 into other people's air "out of hand," and not common sense property rights?

Because we do it every time we exhale. Criminalizing breathing (or any policy that could be interpreted as such in the future) is way beyond "out of hand", it's the lowest form of fascist garbage I've ever seen during my time in America.

CO2 regulations no more criminalize breathing than noise ordinances do. The quantities involved are vastly different.

Re: Climate-Related Death of Coral Around World Alarms Scientists

#176

Post by eggy »

zanny wrote: post #89
eggy wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I try to understand people, and your despair is loud and clear here. Change is inevitable for sure, man or nature (man is nature, BTW). The sun will devour the inner planets in 4 billion years, but it is burning brighter each year, and in 1 billion years, it will boil off the oceans, coral and all. To the stars if we wish to preserve humankind. There is a lot of complaining that nothing is being done. There should be…

If we have the power to traverse interstellar space en masse, we are probably bordering on the necessary Type 2 civilization to move the Earth away from the Sun over the billions of years it will take to first boil the oceans and then eat the planet. Its asymptotic to your point, but practically - assuming we don't destroy ourselves this century - we will spend a lot of resources when we are a trans-universal space-f…

Yes, you need to survive today to see tomorrow, that's true. Two reads that border on fringe speculation that I happened to enjoy thoroughly were: The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead by Frank J. Tipler, and The Singularity is Near by Ray Kurzweil. Now, I am an atheist, and I fully know the zaniness of Kipler's Omega Point and its ties to Christianity, but there are discussions in there like in Kurzweil's book about how we will expand throughout the cosmos all based on hard science. It only gets trippy in some places. Still more fun to read than junk fiction. I do believe that we are in the period of 'accelerating returns', and that things will come sooner than we think with space mining, colonization and humans spreading throughout the universe. And, yes, we will try to preserve the Earth in the process, but moving it, performing climate engineering on it, etc... will probably fall by the wayside when we are living on other worlds. It's artifacts and history will be preserved I believe. I don't think we will recreate it per Tipler due to having mastery of information, his 'resurrection' discussion which involves everything, not just people! Fun stuff.

Re: Climate-Related Death of Coral Around World Alarms Scientists

#177

Post by Gedrovits »

Chronic51 wrote: post #158
Gedrovits wrote: post #144

First of all, don't give up too easy. It's a lot easier to say: we are screwed, my contribution will not change anything. This is wrong approach to the problem, changes start from somewhere. Imagine the startup, who don't have customers yet and just gives up (because what's point, they will not come). The more traction they have, the more snowballish it become. How regular people can help? 1) Try to use renewable mat…

I, and millions of others, say: "we are screwed, my contribution will not change anything"

That is the reason why nothing changes. Invest in growth, it's popular now. The more people lobby the green interests (don't confuse with any political "green"), the more politics will adapt to them and provide laws to support their beliefs.

Currently this always looks like, hey, X doing Y times more than I do, why I should care? This will not change anything.

Blaming China now is quite not fair, because other countries already caused this global warming, not China, they now just want to grow like the others.

This mindset of modern humans lead to lost of humanity itself. Most of the people don't care about others, they are selfish. Until every bit of climate change hit them personally (like your house underwater, boom!) then they will start to think about that and demand changes.

So "Plan B" will be waiting when this thing will blow into the face of those, but as always this will be too late.

Re: Climate-Related Death of Coral Around World Alarms Scientists

#178

Post by Gedrovits »

lossolo wrote: post #160
Gedrovits wrote: post #144

First of all, don't give up too easy. It's a lot easier to say: we are screwed, my contribution will not change anything. This is wrong approach to the problem, changes start from somewhere. Imagine the startup, who don't have customers yet and just gives up (because what's point, they will not come). The more traction they have, the more snowballish it become. How regular people can help? 1) Try to use renewable mat…

I do a lot from this list BUT... then i look at China that has carbon emissions equal to EU + US + INDIA all together.. and i am really concerned.

6) Stop searching for someone to blame and "Just DO IT!" (c) Shia

Re: Climate-Related Death of Coral Around World Alarms Scientists

#179

Post by Gedrovits »

Joof wrote: post #169
hacker42 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the only way out is political top-down decisions rather than mental shifts. Habits are just too strong and the competitive disadvantage of frugality just too inconvenient for most of our primate brains. Environmentalism and passive-aggressively oppressing of habits via high moral self-standards is too easily strawmanned or misinterpreted as ideology by the mobs. -- The most ignorant win. The largest impact wi…

One way to influence politics is to spread the culture of being habitually green. The big gains may all be political or require extensive city design, but changing the mindset to 'people want green; and superficial won't cut it' is a big part of making that happen. Do I want to give up my car? No. What if I did want to; how would that change my outlook? I'd want cities and a job that accommodates those desires. What…

OK, so you want car, then we need to find out WHY you need it. The real reason behind it and make it more optimal.

There are hybrid, full electric cars out there, so if something hard to be changed, we can try to replace it with more optimal.

Going back Dark Age again will not help a lot and people will not agree to this.

Post reply on HN