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

2015 Set a Frenzy of Climate Records

scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 44 posts

Re: 2015 Set a Frenzy of Climate Records

#21

Post by zbyte64 »

ams6110 wrote: post #17
monk_e_boy wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I keep thinking that capitalism, the pursuit of money above all else, can't be the correct way forward. Not with weak governments that refuse to correctly TAX pollution and non-recyclable items. [edit] Down votes, OK. But why do you disagree? I can't think of a solution other than having Guido van Rossum as our benevolent dictator for life for the entire globe.

Capitalistic democracies are the only thing likely to solve the problem. The dictatorships are among the worlds worst offenders in terms of pollution and overall environmental protection.

Was curious about the data on this, here is green house gasses per capita (circa 2000):

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

Does anyone have more recent data then this? Canada, America and Australia were some of the worse offenders back in 2000. It would be interesting to see how this has changed.

Re: 2015 Set a Frenzy of Climate Records

#22

Post by SwellJoe »

ams6110 wrote: post #17
monk_e_boy wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I keep thinking that capitalism, the pursuit of money above all else, can't be the correct way forward. Not with weak governments that refuse to correctly TAX pollution and non-recyclable items. [edit] Down votes, OK. But why do you disagree? I can't think of a solution other than having Guido van Rossum as our benevolent dictator for life for the entire globe.

Capitalistic democracies are the only thing likely to solve the problem. The dictatorships are among the worlds worst offenders in terms of pollution and overall environmental protection.

Democracy doesn't require capitalism. Even free markets are possible without capitalism (as we currently practice it). I'm not making any argument about whether we want a democracy or a market without capitalism, but it is a false dichotomy to suggest that the alternative to capitalism is a dictatorship.

Re: 2015 Set a Frenzy of Climate Records

#23

Post by zbyte64 »

b_emery wrote: post #16
castratikron wrote: post #2

Global warming is the greatest existential threat to civilization. And when today's Republican nominee says that global warming is a "hoax", it makes me almost certain that that's what's going to end up doing us in.

I dont doubt that it is a threat, but disagree that its the greatest threat. I think it will have costs and that the 1st world will be able to (reluctantly) afford these costs. Its the people who cannot afford the costs that will suffer, due to reasons listed below, such as disease, food and water supply, etc. I'd list accidental nuclear war as the greatest threat to civilization, fwiw.

If a 2nd world country with nuclear weapons cannot adapt to climate change, then nuclear war becomes more likely...

Re: 2015 Set a Frenzy of Climate Records

#24

Post by strommen »

danieltillett wrote: post #18
strommen wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's definitely reason to be optimistic. Emissions have started decreasing majorly in Europe [1], slightly in the USA [2], and are even leveling off in China [3]. Those three entities account for half the world's emissions. Solar power has become cheap enough now that it's reasonable for developing countries (especially India) to rely on it heavily as they become fully electrified. [1] http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat…

The problem is the real, unbiased, can't be faked data shows that the CO2 level is rising the most it has in recorded history. It has jumped 4 ppm in the last year alone [1]. 1. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

3.75ppm, but yes - to be clear, worldwide emissions are continuing to increase, so the CO2 level should be rising by more and more every year.

If we can level off our greenhouse emissions (and we're very close), the CO2 level should continue to rise each year, but at a roughly-constant rate.

And if the world can get approach net-zero greenhouse emissions (a reasonable goal for 2050), the CO2 level should stop growing.

And then, we would need a few centuries of negative greenhouse emissions to get back to pre-industrial temperatures. I suspect we'll never bother to do this.

Re: 2015 Set a Frenzy of Climate Records

#25

Post by danieltillett »

strommen wrote: post #24
danieltillett wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is the real, unbiased, can't be faked data shows that the CO2 level is rising the most it has in recorded history. It has jumped 4 ppm in the last year alone [1]. 1. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

3.75ppm, but yes - to be clear, worldwide emissions are continuing to increase, so the CO2 level should be rising by more and more every year. If we can level off our greenhouse emissions (and we're very close), the CO2 level should continue to rise each year, but at a roughly-constant rate. And if the world can get approach net-zero greenhouse emissions (a reasonable goal for 2050), the CO2 level should stop growing…

According to the NOAA link I provided the CO2 concentration at Mauna Loa rose from 402.80 ppm in June 2015 to 406.81 ppm in June 2016 (most recent data) which is 4.01 ppm in a year :(

I think you mean the growth rate of CO2 emission is starting to level (actually looking at the data not even this is true), not growth of CO2. We are still headed for disaster if the CO2 goes up by 4ppm every year. I see no sign that emissions of CO2 are slowing, or that we are doing anything serious to stop emitting GHG. Just look at the growth of CH4 which is continuing to increase [1].

1. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends_ch4/

Re: 2015 Set a Frenzy of Climate Records

#26

Post by objectivistbrit »

SwellJoe wrote: post #4

The scary thing about this (well, one scary thing) is that we, as a worldwide community, needed to be making hard decisions about the climate two or three decades ago, to stave off the worst of the impact of climate change. We're several years too late to stop it, and we still have half of our government (in the US) utterly denying the problem even exists. The decisions that need to be made now to stave off complete…

    We're several years too late to stop it, and we still have half of our government (in the US) utterly denying the problem even exists.
I suggest looking up what people on the opposite side of the debate actually believe, rather than lumping them all together as "denying the problem even exists".

C02 levels are rising (currently 0.04%, will be 0.05% by 2060) and cause a greenhouse effect. We don't know how strong this effect is, but we do know the effect is logarithmic (every additional unit of C02 causes less warming). Many predictions of knock-on effects of climate change are highly speculative (e.g., gulf stream shutdown) or products of distorted incentives (much more money is allocated for climate science research than for other environmental studies, incentivising researchers to exaggerate links between climate change and other environmental issues).

Every indication is that we're facing changes which we can adapt to or mitigate with technology. What's also clear is that cutting emissions by more than 80% (as is often advocated) would cripple energy production, which would cripple industrial civilisation. We're talking people going back to living in tiny smoke-filled cottages (no AC or central heating), in small villages (no commuting), mostly working on farms (no diesel-powered farm equipment).

Fossil fuels, nuclear and hydro power are currently the only viable options to keep modern civilisation running. Hopefully we eventually find an alternative, but it's insane to risk mass suicide to avoid a manageable change in the climate, on the utopian hope that wind/solar will somehow leap forwards in efficiency.

Anyway, that's what I (and many other rational anti-environmentalists) believe.

    there's a whole segment of the population that still believes in fairy tales spun by the oil and gas industry.
If you're implying people are in hock to propaganda, the amount spent by the fossil fuel industry on advocacy is dwarfed by the amount spent on pro-environmentalist advocacy by governments, liberal foundations and the big environmentalist NGOs.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/01/02/dark-mone...

    The human mind is just terrible at grasping problems on the scale and timeline of global climate change, and it's plausible that it'll be the end of life as we know it in another few decades.
Nice combination of speculation about why people disagree (their minds just can't "grasp" it) followed by ungrounded catastrophism. Even the IPCC thinks we're facing a sea level rise of between 20 and 60 centimetres by 2100. That is not "the end of life as we know it".

Re: 2015 Set a Frenzy of Climate Records

#27

Post by mikerichards »

castratikron wrote: post #2

Global warming is the greatest existential threat to civilization. And when today's Republican nominee says that global warming is a "hoax", it makes me almost certain that that's what's going to end up doing us in.

Global Warming coincides with leftist economic/political policies very neatly. That can't be denied.

Re: 2015 Set a Frenzy of Climate Records

#28

Post by tpm »

SwellJoe wrote: post #22
ams6110 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Capitalistic democracies are the only thing likely to solve the problem. The dictatorships are among the worlds worst offenders in terms of pollution and overall environmental protection.

Democracy doesn't require capitalism. Even free markets are possible without capitalism (as we currently practice it). I'm not making any argument about whether we want a democracy or a market without capitalism, but it is a false dichotomy to suggest that the alternative to capitalism is a dictatorship.

Liberal democracy requires the availability of liquid capital (and therefore capitalism), because with only illiquid types of capital (land, social ties etc), there is no freedom and mobility. Other types of democracy may not require it, but they are not used much currently.

Re: 2015 Set a Frenzy of Climate Records

#29

Post by dragonwriter »

tpm wrote: post #28
SwellJoe wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Democracy doesn't require capitalism. Even free markets are possible without capitalism (as we currently practice it). I'm not making any argument about whether we want a democracy or a market without capitalism, but it is a false dichotomy to suggest that the alternative to capitalism is a dictatorship.

Liberal democracy requires the availability of liquid capital (and therefore capitalism), because with only illiquid types of capital (land, social ties etc), there is no freedom and mobility. Other types of democracy may not require it, but they are not used much currently.

> Liberal democracy requires the availability of liquid capital (and therefore capitalism),

"Capitalism" is not named for or defined by the existence of liquid capital (which both predates and exists outside of capitalism.)

Re: 2015 Set a Frenzy of Climate Records

#30

Post by tonmoy »

SwellJoe wrote: post #20
mod wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like the guy you replied to, I don't want any tone inferred into my question. Those points you made, while worrisome, are not "civilization-ending" or catastrophic. Is there worse, or is that what you expect to continue?

That's what I expect this decade. My concern is that it is all happening faster than even many of the most pessimistic scientists in the field expected, and it seems to be accelerating. What I see when I try to extrapolate from what is happening today: Less food and clean water for more people, sometimes dramatically so in places that are already stressed for food and clean water (again, this will strike the poor far…

That seems like the current conclusion. But as people start dying, the population should decrease and that will limit global warming. Life as humans knew it has already ended, and civilization as we know it might end, but shouldn't mankind and civilization still survive pretty well? (Legitimate question)
Post reply on HN