[flagged]
Fastest rate of natural carbon dioxide rise over the last 50k years
171–180 of 504 posts
Re: Fastest rate of natural carbon dioxide rise over the last 50k years
#172Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you take away from this?
That its not nearly as much as an catastrophe as some HN readers wish it to be. Think about it. The carbon didn't spawn in the earth, it got deposited there. Coal and oil are sediment based. It used to be in circulation previously. And yet Earth is still habitable.
> And yet Earth is still habitable.
For humans? We did not exist for most of that chart. There's only one peak that coincides with the 200000 or so years of human existence, and your chart shows us on track to beat it. We don't have records from 100000 years ago either, we know humans as a whole survived and that's about it. I think it's a bit presumptuous to extend that to all 8 billion people alive today.
I guess my point is that it's possible that humans will survive this AND it will be catastrophic for our society.
Re: Fastest rate of natural carbon dioxide rise over the last 50k years
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
>Who gets paid for selling all the junk? If a building contractor is known to use salve labor and dump the waste in the lake of the next town nearby, do you report him to the authorities to shut him down, or do you knowingly and willingly engage in business with him to do landscaping/work on your house for cheap despite knowing this about him, because it's profitable for you as well? If it's the latter, who's fault i…
Generally I think it is most fair to place the larger slice of blame on the one who originally presents the opportunity. These entities also tend to try and be opaque about the dubious methods they are using to undercut everyone else.
Talk to that building contractor and they will swear that they pay their employees well and responsibly manage all waste.
Of course, you still bear the remaining slice of blame since you kinda knew they were lying and went along with it anyway.
Re: Fastest rate of natural carbon dioxide rise over the last 50k years
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
People never picture themselves as being among those great numbers who suffer and die in these scenarios.
Be realistic, you are more likely to die from cardiovascular issues or car crashes.
And suffer from rising water levels, don't ask me how I know.
Re: Fastest rate of natural carbon dioxide rise over the last 50k years
#175The comments section is an trash fire. Some people seem to be more than ready for the apocalypse to actually happen. What a sad state of affairs.
a trash fire *
Some people just want to watch the world burn
Re: Fastest rate of natural carbon dioxide rise over the last 50k years
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
We are well past being equipped to know the ramifications of using energy to move mass long distances. Using more space, traveling further distances, and moving more mass is all it comes down to. In order of impact, it means detached homes, individual huge car and air transport, animal food products, and shipping things across oceans (aka things stamped with made in China). Approximately no one is willing to give up…
You're placing the blame on the wrong thing - The embodied energy of producing most of the things we consume is much higher than the energy of shipping. Shipping on a massive container ship is really impressively efficient. (Shipping by air is a very different matter, of course) You can see the same thing if you look at the energy cost of food shipping: perishable goods like asparagus are shipped in refrigerated plan…
True, I should have replaced shipping with the mass of everything else we consume.
Re: Fastest rate of natural carbon dioxide rise over the last 50k years
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
People never picture themselves as being among those great numbers who suffer and die in these scenarios.
Be realistic, you are more likely to die from cardiovascular issues or car crashes.
A simultaneous failure of multiple breadbasket regions (something made much more likely by climate change) would case mass global death. To be fair, first-worlders wouldn't be as affected, though.
It's not good to assume all hope is lost, but it is also dangerous to bury your head in the sand.
Re: Fastest rate of natural carbon dioxide rise over the last 50k years
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
Definitely not the solution. Ending capitalism for some other form of economy is the only way in my opinion. Not that I don’t think people should be rewarded for the products and services they offer just that the incentive to make cheap shit and sell an upgrade every year is definitely harmful to our earth. The problem I see is I don’t know what type of economic solution there is that would fit.
I think the tools to solve the challenges of waste, environmental damage etc. already exist within the framework of capitalism. Mostly they are just unpopular and seen by many as a government overreach. 1. taxes that force corporations and individuals to pay for the negative externalities / social costs of their actions 2. regulation (e.g. stop allowing planned obsolence, mandate the right to repair etc.) 3. governme…
>Anyway, my point is that the issue is basically one of co-ordination and political will
Again, what does "political will" mean? What are you going to do to those that disagree? Lock them up? Exterminate them? What is the solution to force people to do your bidding, and has it ever worked?
Re: Fastest rate of natural carbon dioxide rise over the last 50k years
#179Climate change is unavoidable. People should start moving to highland now.
Sea level rise from climate change is a fairly marginal issue in most places on the scale of a human lifetime. Famine from drought is a much bigger problem in the short term.
Re: Fastest rate of natural carbon dioxide rise over the last 50k years
#180Paper link https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2319652121 Absolutely infuriating that university press releases don't include this. They should be embarrassed.
Agreed. I would understand such oversight from the 'common press', but from a university I would expect better. Oddly, of the 16 authors, they credit the first and the last, yet authors are usually cited in order of importance. The writer of this article clearly did not know better. Perhaps she thought that to credit the first and the last would be somehow 'covering all bases'. As others have done, I also question the title of the article, which does not correspond to the facts presented in the paper. As a press release, this is a mess.
Regarding the actual content, I am no expert, but on surface evaluation their methodology seems generally sound. Importantly, they seem to be referencing data from first hand sources. However, I am still confused. They state:
> A total of 453 measurements were made from 249 individual depth levels on the WAIS Divide Ice core (79.48°S, 112.11°W).
Does that mean '453 measurements from each of the 249 depth levels'? Or '453 measurements from random points in the 249 depth levels'? Or what? And what is the difference between an 'individual depth level' and a 'depth level'.
Such imprecision aside, climate change = warming ocean = wind direction change = catastrophic climate change. I remain worried.