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

Fastest rate of natural carbon dioxide rise over the last 50k years

today.oregonstate.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 504 posts

Re: Fastest rate of natural carbon dioxide rise over the last 50k years

#261

Post by duozerk »

trashtester wrote: post #227
duozerk wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> happening VERY slowly > failing to move away from the cost in the next 100 years Unless you're a time-traveler from the 50s who has somehow managed to post here, there is no excuse for this type of disinformation these days. Mentioning higher sea levels is also a red herring; massive agricultural yields collapse will be an issue long before (like, this century) sea levels become a major problem. More than this, we…

This doesn't seem to agree with IPCC predictions. What's your source?

Despite the IPCC being very conservative/optimistic in their scenarios, this is in fact in line with their reports; admittedly my comment above might be badly worded - when I said "near-term", I meant "in the upcoming two centuries or so".

The IPCC reports say we might reach 4C, 5C or even more; based on the historical record, such a major change in such a short time - several orders of magnitude faster than previous CO2e-gases-linked mass extinction events - likely cannot be adapted to by the majority of species (there will of course also be a few evolutionary winners), resulting in potential extinction. I also quote the latest draft report from that same IPCC, leaked about two years back by concerned involved scientists to newspapers before the usual step where political stakeholders are allowed to reword the parts they deem too disturbing or against their interests:

"Life on Earth can recover from a drastic climate shift by evolving into new species and creating new ecosystems," it says. "Humans cannot."

Re: Fastest rate of natural carbon dioxide rise over the last 50k years

#262

Post by EricE »

GenerWork wrote: post #245
Symmetry wrote: post #239

With each new IPCC report the chances of us keeping global warming below 1.5 C become more and more remote as emissions are locked in. But at the same time the really bad scenarios where we go well over 4 C also become more remote. Every half degree is worse than the last and each is worth righting for but it does look like our civilization will make it through this intact, even if not all people individually.

>it does look like our civilization will make it through this intact Has anybody ever seriously believed that we wouldn't make it through? This just seems like an alarmist take to me.

Indeed. Fear = control Control = power

Re: Fastest rate of natural carbon dioxide rise over the last 50k years

#263

Post by usaar333 »

hsavit1 wrote: post #51
belter wrote: post #3

We are in the multilayered race between - The risk of the rise of AGI - The risk and madness of Nuclear conflict - The risk of runaway Climate change My money is on Mother Gaia. She will brutally and swiftly discipline her puppies.

You don’t understand the enormous immediate risk of climate change if you think that AGI is a comparable risk. Climate change is now and is killing people every day

Climate risk is extremely unlikely to be existential this century. And the mean GDP hits are pretty low all things considered. 30% or so in 2100.

AGI actually has a plausible case for existential risk and would result in a much greater GDP shift.

I'd put nukes above climate change. See does metaculus: https://possibleworldstree.com/

Re: Fastest rate of natural carbon dioxide rise over the last 50k years

#264

Post by AnimalMuppet »

thijson wrote: post #233
cheschire wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the implication is that the nuclear war would exist between sovereign rulers, not necessarily between the physical spaces themselves. Wipe out a capital city in an attempt to behead a sovereign government so that their land is available for take over. Apparently though, the bombs that landed on hiroshima and nagasaki did not create much fallout, making the space livable relatively quickly. It seems less destr…

Chernobyl had tonnes of radioactive material, a nuclear bomb has much less material, in the kilograms. After Chernobyl blew its lid off, the reactor core was laid open. Witnesses said they could see a beam of light going into the sky. It was the radiation ionizing the air. A helicopter that was trying to drop sand onto the reactor accidently flew too close over it, giving the pilot a lethal dose.

Maybe not "accidentally". That pilot may have known the danger, and done it anyway. I seem to recall reading that he did, but I can't point you to a source.

Re: Fastest rate of natural carbon dioxide rise over the last 50k years

#265

Post by admissionsguy »

alex_duf wrote: post #149
admissionsguy wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

#1 is marketing hype #2 is a remote possibility #3 is a non-threat

please explain how #3 is a non-threat?

Unlike race, the fear of global warming is a social construct. Logically, if you are worried about humans, you should be worried about aging, cancer, heart disease. And if you are worried about the rest of nature, you should be worried about geology and human influence (of which climate is a minor part and self-limiting if significant).

Re: Fastest rate of natural carbon dioxide rise over the last 50k years

#266

Post by dahart »

exoverito wrote: post #181
jeromegv wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> #3 will be solved by human ingenuity It already started, billions of dollars in losses, with no real solution in sight.

There will always billions in losses from something, especially when global wealth is estimated to be around 450 trillion. The Dust Bowl was a disastrous incident of climate change, yet it didn't occur because of CO2. The damage caused by the California Wildfires are just as much a function of expanding developments into forests, immediately putting out small fires leading to the accumulation of fuel over time, and o…

> If anything we should see significantly accelerated plant growth by about 10 to 50%

If that’s true, there should be global evidence of this happening already- are you aware of any publications confirming this effect?

You say accelerated growth like it’d be a good thing, but I don’t think we should wish for it or expect that to mitigate any damage… getting to the point of doubled CO2 would probably be extremely bad. If CO2 levels doubled, we’d for sure lose significant amount of our ice sheets, and some coastal cities along with it. Some of that is already happening anyway, but tripling the radiative effect will make it go much faster and much farther. As it stands, any increase in plant growth isn’t in any way making up for the rate we’re cutting down and paving over all the plants, and it’s not clear that 10 to 50% accelerated plant growth would make up for it either… even assuming that accelerated plant growth actually leads to more plants and a greater volume of oxygen cycle, and not just earlier blooms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation#Rates_of_defores...

https://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/what-...

Re: Fastest rate of natural carbon dioxide rise over the last 50k years

#267

Post by duozerk »

trashtester wrote: post #213
jmyeet wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not that worried about nuclear conflict because it's a scenario where literally nobody wins. There's always the "Madman" hypothesis but really that's no way to do geopolitical analysis. Nobody is truly "crazy" (IMHO). Remember those orders have to be carried out by someone. They've studies on this with missile silo operators and they had a disturbing or comforting (depending on your POV) tendency to not launch. I…

> There's really been such a long period of time that if runaway climate change were going to happen, why hasn't it happened already? I don't think runaway climate change or even something like a reversal of the Gulf Stream were ever any of the mainstream scenarios from IPCC. The worst scenarios, IIRC, were a global warming of +6 to 10C. And that is over several centuries, provided we do nothing to stop it. This cent…

At 4C of heating, you cannot grow food in any reasonable quantity with any reliability, period. 4C is the collapse of modern civilization at the very least (in fact likely earlier due to increased geopolitical instability and tensions due to dwindling resources, combined with the availability of nuclear weapons), with a massive die-off of humans along with it.

Re: Fastest rate of natural carbon dioxide rise over the last 50k years

#268

Post by mytailorisrich »

_djo_ wrote: post #259
mytailorisrich wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why I mentioned development, which is key to understand current status, evolution and where things are going. The world simply cannot emit like the US do per capita. China's emissions have increased because the country has been developing and Chinese are still quite poorer on average than Americans. India is still low because they are behind in terms of development and they don't (yet) produce for the world. I…

I’m saying that before very long China will emit more per capita than the US does too, because US emissions per capita keep falling while China’s keep skyrocketing. So, no, even when you take population into account China is a bad emitter and not doing nearly enough to invest in decarbonising their economy in the same way the US and EU have.

China is doing a lot to decarbonise its economy, probably more than anyone, and is still poorer than the US.

Again, you also need to take into account that the US and EU have outsourced emissions to China, which needed that to develop. Still the US emit a huge amount per capita so it's disingenuous so claim that China is a bad emitter, which feels like the US is trying too hard to deflect.

Re: Fastest rate of natural carbon dioxide rise over the last 50k years

#269

Post by jonathankoren »

aurareturn wrote: post #62
AlexandrB wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

#1 is marketing hype. #2 is very real. #3 is happening and could cause #2 if wars for livable land and water resources break out.

#1 is very real #2 is warmongering #3 will be solved by human ingenuity I have a more positive outlook. :)

Number 3 is literally an article of faith. And like all matters of faith, not only is there no evidence for it, the evidence that we do have runs counter to the belief.

Let’s be honest here. Climate change was a completely predicable problem with known causes causes and solutions. It was detected early and alarms were raised in a timely manner. Literally nothing happened. In fact, even today, nothing happens. Why? Money. Because the billionaires would rather have us all die than not buy a tenth superyacht. (NB: Go Team Orca!)

The problem was not, and is not, science. It’s money and who has it. Now those same folks and their apologists promote quite laughable ideas like carbon capture and geoengineering. Could we have gotten cheaper lithium batteries earlier with more investment? Probably, but what did we get instead? Fracking. Literally the opposite of what was needed.

Science is not magic. Even if it was, the nature of the problem means it gets exponentially more difficult every day that passes. You mange to repeal the second law of thermodynamics and somehow got the carbon pollution industry to spend enough money to make it viable? Great! Oh, oops! The permafrost melted and now 10x more powerful methane has been released, so… yeah. Too late!

It’s just Pollyanna talk that actively harmful as it not only directs resources from mitigation and migration to wasteful handouts while simultaneously giving cover for just staying the course.

But hey. Maybe I’m just a doomer, and those Titanic passengers should have just sciences up more lifeboats instead of drown. Maybe all of this just… “needs more study”.

Re: Fastest rate of natural carbon dioxide rise over the last 50k years

#270

Post by jonathankoren »

jayGlow wrote: post #249
FranzFerdiNaN wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that we are going to technology our way out of climate change is hilariously naive. That would require us to remove more co2 from the atmopshere each year than we add, which is just a laughable idea to achieve within the required time frame of the next 15 years or so.

there are likely technologies that could mitigate the effects while we work on a solution. geoengineering could help reduce the temperature of the planet although that has its own problems.

We have the solution for decades. The rolling class just doesn’t want to use them because it would cost them money
Post reply on HN