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

The Global Population Crisis That Never Was

rogerpielkejr.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 280 posts

Re: The Global Population Crisis That Never Was

#241

Post by h0l0cube »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #45
h0l0cube wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty well known that when you look at individual consumptions habits, which account for overseas production emissions, there's a clear correlation between income and greenhouse gas emissions. Though it has been shown that some countries are beginning to reduce emissions while increasing GDP. Much of that shift could be explained by a global shift to renewables as they become the cheapest form of power, but thi…

Yeah but emissions are only one part of the equation - logging a forest will produce more net atmospheric carbon than taking a long-haul plane trip, even though cutting down trees doesn't emit anything. The biggest carbon sink is the ocean, so doing things that damage the ocean (like dumping trash into a river) are more of a concern. There's also other environmental concerns than CO2 and climate change. Damaging jung…

Not sure why you'd think I wouldn't be concerned about logging, or waste, or environmentalism in general - especially given what I wrote. I am, for the record.

Re: The Global Population Crisis That Never Was

#242

Post by spiralx »

dillondoyle wrote: post #176
eloff wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably not directly. It will cause mass migration and refugee crises as coastal cities and low lying areas slowly flood. That seems inevitable at this point. That could maybe lead to wars, and nuclear war is still an existential threat. If the changes somehow disrupt the ability to support cereal crops in the northern hemisphere (which actually is also the biggest risk from nuclear winter), that could lead to wides…

I just read a study showing this europe crops crisis. And to the parent of this thread we keep seeing constant research showing IPCC is off (sometimes wayy off) in their worst case (e.g. we're there or past it in many respects). Armagedon is the last battle. To me that's what climate crisis is and how we need to look at it and take immediate action. We battle and win or we lose and it's really really really bad. Mayb…

The effect of the Gulf Stream on European climate isn't as large as often made out to be. The simple fact that Europe is on the western side of a continental landmass accounts for a huge portion of its climate - air travelling west to east over the ocean absorbs warm moisture and heats up, as the wind travels east across land it sheds that moisture via rain and becomes dryer and colder.

It's one of the reasons why Vancouver and London have similar climates, and both never get as cold as either of New York or Vladivostok, both of which are to the south of them.

Re: The Global Population Crisis That Never Was

#243

Post by solarengineer »

BurningFrog wrote: post #63

As I've gotten older and seen predicted doomsdays come and go, I've started to think that expecting armageddon is an innate part of human psychology. I'm not aware of any era or place where many people have not expected the world to meet disaster soon. It's a part of all major religions.

Several warnings have come true: rising sea levels, disappearance of bees, extinction of several animal species, melting of glaciers, disappearance of coral reefs, loss of soil surface due to deforestation.

Armageddon for me is thus not a one-day event like in movies such as The Day after Tomorrow, but a gradual and accelerating destruction all around. This is a “boil the ocean” project that humans have inadvertently initiated and it is taking the required time to complete.

Re: The Global Population Crisis That Never Was

#244

Post by nooron »

thereddaikon wrote: post #209
yellowstuff wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. It could be that worrying about doomsday is an innate human trait, and that as the article asserts, certain types of worries are motivated by racism. I still think it's a good idea to allocate some resources towards mitigating low probability, high impact events.

Being prepared for emergencies is prudent. And most contingencies require the same basic preparations and planning. A store of non perishables, water and a way to purify more, a good rifle and ammo, clothes for adverse conditions, perhaps a generator etc are all good to keep on hand. But the number of times in human history the world has "ended" can be counted on one hand. That time 10k years ago when the human popul…

Your advice is good, I agree that the most important thing is to be prepared for these smaller events. I would like to add an entry to your list of armageddons though. The indigenous people of the Americas had a pretty bad century after first contact.

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

Re: The Global Population Crisis That Never Was

#245

Post by sep_field »

jojobas wrote: post #13

There are way more people on Earth than Earth can sustain in what we consider a life worth living. As bloodthirsty capitalism pulls more and more people out of poverty we discover that putting a steak on everyone's table and a fresh car in everyone's garage is too taxing on the atmosphere, wildlife, forests and what not. We seem to have to choose between a smaller luxurious population and billions and billions of peo…

you call what we have a life worth living? we'd be better off dead.

Re: The Global Population Crisis That Never Was

#246

Post by dillondoyle »

xyzzyz wrote: post #213
dillondoyle wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just read a study showing this europe crops crisis. And to the parent of this thread we keep seeing constant research showing IPCC is off (sometimes wayy off) in their worst case (e.g. we're there or past it in many respects). Armagedon is the last battle. To me that's what climate crisis is and how we need to look at it and take immediate action. We battle and win or we lose and it's really really really bad. Mayb…

> And to the parent of this thread we keep seeing constant research showing IPCC is off (sometimes wayy off) in their worst case (e.g. we're there or past it in many respects). Of course, that's expected. Even if you assume that IPCC is 100% on point, then with p-value threshold of 0.05, you'd expect 1 in every 20 studies to show that IPCC is off. The real question is whether the scientific consensus changes by the t…

I'm more asking that we take dramatic, drastic, and gigantic efforts to 'fight' the 'last battle' on climate change if you will take this thread metaphor lol

i agree with you on the nitty gritty for a general audience. mostly i dont think bogging down the public with research helps and it's way too often used in bad faith to do the opposite by industry and certain political groups acting in their own interest

on the other hand

on the other hand if like half the country experiencing some weather catastrophe in the last 5 years doesnt do it im not sure ;( so i do think we need more fear and for sure a lot more alarm, but yeah probably not alarmism in the sense i think you are probably referring to

i do love HN though for a higher level discussion

Re: The Global Population Crisis That Never Was

#247

Post by dillondoyle »

spiralx wrote: post #242
dillondoyle wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just read a study showing this europe crops crisis. And to the parent of this thread we keep seeing constant research showing IPCC is off (sometimes wayy off) in their worst case (e.g. we're there or past it in many respects). Armagedon is the last battle. To me that's what climate crisis is and how we need to look at it and take immediate action. We battle and win or we lose and it's really really really bad. Mayb…

The effect of the Gulf Stream on European climate isn't as large as often made out to be. The simple fact that Europe is on the western side of a continental landmass accounts for a huge portion of its climate - air travelling west to east over the ocean absorbs warm moisture and heats up, as the wind travels east across land it sheds that moisture via rain and becomes dryer and colder. It's one of the reasons why Va…

interesting. the study i read did mention the UK as a big effect if it slows down, would get much colder. and maybe im not understanding the west to east air over ocean, isn't that specifically what we're talking about slowing down / potentially worst case stopping or totally changing?

Re: The Global Population Crisis That Never Was

#248

Post by eloff »

thu2111 wrote: post #202
Animats wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Miami needs to move a few meters straight up. This is quite possible. Galveston, TX [1] and Chicago [2] did that a century ago. Miami Beach is raising some main roads, finally. Here's Miami's flood zone map.[3] Worldwide, cities on river deltas face problems. Mostly in Asia. New Orleans is the only US city built on sand flatland at the mouth of a huge river. Asia has several of those. New York is building a seaw…

A few meters? That's the scenario where there's some runaway global warming and all the poles melt, right? Actual observed sea level rises are measured in millimeters per year. Historical trends can't lead to Miami needing to move several meters up unless you're talking about, like, 1000 years from now. There are some problems with the assumption of a flooding crisis. The historical record from tide gauges have been…

You can't look at historical trends because it's not rising linearly. Most of the warming and melting will happen in the last decades of this century. That's part of what makes it easy to underestimate.

But you are right that it will keep rising for a thousand years or more. But now at that timeframe we're talking 6-12 meters or more.

This is all in the fairly conservative public estimates that so far have underrepresented the pace and scale of change.

Re: The Global Population Crisis That Never Was

#249

Post by eloff »

BurningFrog wrote: post #227
eloff wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do you move the hundred million people in Bangladesh? What do you do in Florida?

First of all, people can move themselves. They don't need someone else to move them. Floridians have a continent of 49 other states to move to. The Bangladeshis are in a tougher spot, since they're approaching 200 million and might need to cross a political border. If the rest of the world closes its borders, maybe they'll have to look into landfills, flood walls etc. Or maybe they can settle the newly habitable Sibe…

> Or maybe they can settle the newly habitable Siberian lands.

Because of Russia's famous open borders policy, and China happy to open their borders to let refugees pass through? What planet do you live on?

That's like saying the US would open its southern border to let migrants pass thorough up to Canada.

Re: The Global Population Crisis That Never Was

#250

Post by quercusa »

dwaltrip wrote: post #93
BurningFrog wrote: post #63

As I've gotten older and seen predicted doomsdays come and go, I've started to think that expecting armageddon is an innate part of human psychology. I'm not aware of any era or place where many people have not expected the world to meet disaster soon. It's a part of all major religions.

I agree that it is a shame that many people make over-confident predictions such as “in exactly 10 years, X will happen”. You often have to dig when reading a story to find out which parts are strongly supported by our scientific understanding, which can be frustrating. However, nonsense like that doesn’t change the fact that more co2 in the air increases the Earth’s temperature. And unfortunately we don’t seem to be…

From the article:

“The situation in the United States is that to get a response, the need must be somewhat overplayed”

Post reply on HN