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

The risk of a hothouse Earth trajectory

cell.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 422 posts

Re: The risk of a hothouse Earth trajectory

#171

Post by vaylian »

mullingitover wrote: post #92
smartmic wrote: post #18

It is important to keep reminding ourselves that climate change is a real problem for humanity and that each and every one of us contributes to its intensification or mitigation through our decisions. It is a problem that requires solutions, but implementing these solutions involves so much inertia that it can sometimes be painful. And let's contrast that with the AI hype. It's more the opposite, a kind of solution t…

> each and every one of us contributes to its intensification or mitigation through our decisions. I have to disagree here. This idea of a consumer-level personal responsibility for the fossil energy industry's externalized costs is a lot like the plastic producers shifting blame for waste by saying that it's the consumers' fault for not recycling. It's transparent blame-shifting. The fossil energy industry pulls the…

Hank Green did a good short video on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvAznN_MPWQ

TL;DW: It is important that individuals show that there is a real problem and that they perform actions that address the problem. This demonstrative behaviour leads to social dynamics where more people feel encouraged to perform actions and to drive larger change.

You need to start somewhere.

Re: The risk of a hothouse Earth trajectory

#172

Post by david-gpu »

profsummergig wrote: post #141

> During the mid-to-late Pleistocene (∼1.2 million to 11,700 years before present) ... with temperatures ranging roughly between −6°C and +2°C relative to the pre-industrial mean of ∼14°C Does this mean during mid-to-late Pleistocene it used to be -6C to +2C, or does it mean it used to be 8C to 16C? (If the former, then how did early humanoids, and many other animals, survive such cold?)

The latter. I suggest reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#Reconstructin...

Re: The risk of a hothouse Earth trajectory

#173

Post by filoeleven »

candiddevmike wrote: post #44
smartmic wrote: post #18

It is important to keep reminding ourselves that climate change is a real problem for humanity and that each and every one of us contributes to its intensification or mitigation through our decisions. It is a problem that requires solutions, but implementing these solutions involves so much inertia that it can sometimes be painful. And let's contrast that with the AI hype. It's more the opposite, a kind of solution t…

If you're looking to experience a "climate change" simulator, kind of, the game Oxygen Not Included is an interesting chemistry sandbox where you need to balance things like O2, heat, food, etc in a "terrarium" of sorts. The parallels to climate change are similar to real life--most of the game ending problems you encounter are from short sighted thinking earlier on/kicking the can down the road.

If you're near Lake Powell, you could also visit it right now and compare it to what you remember. Not a simulator, just a pretty scary real thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCEJDU9_p4Q

Re: The risk of a hothouse Earth trajectory

#174

Post by dbdr »

bayindirh wrote: post #117
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> my body goes haywire if I don't eat some meat at least a couple of days per week Isn't this just a nutrient deficiency in whatever you were eating instead of meat? Meat is "convenient" because it's high in a wide variety of minerals, vitamins, essential amino acids, etc. that your body can't make. (The animals mostly can't make them either but guess what livestock eats.) There are plants that contain each of them,…

Nope. Some aminoacids and compounds are only present in meat. These aminoacids and compounds are the ones which boosted our brain capacity and allowed us to evolve to that point. I eat (and like to eat) tons of veggies, yet I feel my brain capacity declines and I crave esp. meat if I don't eat it for a long time (for two weeks or whatnot). As I said, I don't need two ribeye steaks per week. My body is very good at si…

> Some aminoacids and compounds are only present in meat.

Which ones specifically?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_amino_acid

All of those can be found in plants.

Re: The risk of a hothouse Earth trajectory

#175

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

Windchaser wrote: post #165
SoftTalker wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Water vapor (clouds) also reflects sunlight. So it's complicated. We know the planet has had higher CO2 and higher temperatures in the past, and it did not "run away"

> Water vapor (clouds) also reflects sunlight. So it's complicated. We know the planet has had higher CO2 and higher temperatures in the past, and it did not "run away" Yes. But stars like ours burn brighter as they move through their lifetimes, and the Sun is a bit brighter now than it was back when we had higher CO2 levels. That's why a runaway GHG didn't happen back then, but is basically guaranteed to happen with…

So… the sun is hotter now than it was what… since the 1950s? The 1850s? The Jurassic period? What scale is do you need to make this claim reasonable?

Also, I see a lot of things presented as facts in your comment, you seem to have convinced yourself quite thoroughly.

Re: The risk of a hothouse Earth trajectory

#176

Post by cosmic_cheese »

tdb7893 wrote: post #121
cosmic_cheese wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not an expert in any of that, but I think overall impact may be greater if people with sufficient means take a more hands-on approach that grants visibility of where money is going. I lean environmentalist be the truth is that there’s a good deal of well-marketed snake oil in the environmental space.

The issue with quibbling over impact is my experience is that people end up doing neither. I recently started a Master's in ecology so I don't have a good idea of what's cost effective right now but I know the field is pretty shockingly underfunded (both for general research and conservation projects). I learned the "fun" fact recently that bird populations in the US are down ~30% in the last 55 years.

A fair assessment. Doing nothing is not the answer to the risk of doing the wrong thing. It's probably worth some time spent on due diligence when selecting groups to donate to, regardless.

Re: The risk of a hothouse Earth trajectory

#177

Post by wffurr »

SJC_Hacker wrote: post #113
yoyohello13 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, more people seems to care about getting AI to play SimCity than the environment. Renewable energy technology is ready, right now today, to replace fossil fuels. All we have to do is start doing it, but the Oil lobby is just too strong apparently. There is no political will. I wish I was wrong, but I just don't see humanity pulling together to solve this one.

> Renewable energy technology is ready, right now today, to replace fossil fuels. All we have to do is start doing it, but the Oil lobby is just too strong apparently. There is no political will. I wish I was wrong, but I just don't see humanity pulling together to solve this one. Sorry, but its really not. Perhaps in some sectors such as ground transportation, but definitely not in air and sea transport and fertiliz…

Solar is so cheap and getting cheaper than we can power those sectors with air-to-fuel plants. A carbon tax would go a long way towards leveling the playing field with carbon neutral or carbon negative alternatives to fossil fuels.

Re: The risk of a hothouse Earth trajectory

#178

Post by Lerc »

swiftcoder wrote: post #63
adolph wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry to be a debbie-downer but the composting process is also a source of greenhouse gas and air pollutant emissions. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9933540/

So are humans (we breathe out CO2 constantly!). A process emitting greenhouse gases is not an inherent reason to eschew it, so long as the entire end-to-end process isn't net-positive. Use that compost to fertilise a tree, and you are still net negative on carbon, versus sending those food scraps to the local trash incinerator.

It's all a cycle, They put carbon in, they release carbon out. At least the average American is doing a commendable job in increasing their personal carbon sequestration.

Re: The risk of a hothouse Earth trajectory

#179

Post by chasil »

andyjohnson0 wrote: post #105
chasil wrote: post #29

What is generally not understood is that our current icehouse phase is rare. 'A "greenhouse Earth" is a period during which no continental glaciers exist anywhere on the planet... Earth has been in a greenhouse state for about 85% of its history. 'Earth is now in an icehouse state, and ice sheets are present in both poles simultaneously... Earth's current icehouse state is known as the Quaternary Ice Age and began ap…

> Earth has been in a greenhouse state for about 85% of its history. And during those periods there were no human beings. And no agriculture, or unstable globalised economiies, or dense urban societies vulnerable to disruption. It is, of course, interesting that our planet has this long, varied existence that pre-dates us. But it is of little use in understanding how to get us out of the hole we're in. And it is argu…

To put a different shade on the meaning, this climate period is rare, easily disturbed, and difficult to restore even with vastly more powerful technology.

The more common greenhouse state is unlikely to lead to a Venus runaway, but it will be hostile to us.

We might very well require the rare climate, and perish in the common.

Re: The risk of a hothouse Earth trajectory

#180

Post by clumsysmurf »

timmg wrote: post #65
aleda145 wrote: post #9

Very alarming. I feel like especially the West is regressing on climate change with the rise of the far right ( https://www.politico.eu/article/robert-lambrou-alternative-f... ) I don't know what to do.

> I feel like especially the West is regressing on climate change with the rise of the far right Is it the "far right"? Or is it that technology and fertility have actually lowered the risks substantially? Solar plus batteries, right now, seems to be the cheapest form of new energy. Given that, you would expect most of new energy to be "green". (And if you look at the stats, that seems to be coming true.) Electrifica…

Yep, its the far right.

The Heritage Foundation (Project 2025, far-right, anti-climate) is working with the Heartland Institute (spreading climate science denial across UK / EU) / Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC, Jordan Peterson)

They do not like EU rules that hold US firms accountable to climate laws.

https://www.desmog.com/2026/02/10/donald-trump-uk-eu-maga-sl...

Post reply on HN