Live data from Hacker News

Oceans 'soaking up more heat than estimated'

bbc.co.uk

31–40 of 225 posts

Re: Oceans 'soaking up more heat than estimated'

#31

Yet more bad news on the climate change front. Based on previous discussions on HN, I'm sure there will be plenty of people proposing ambitious and creative technological solutions. I fear that there's an anthropic bias[0] at work where humans are convinced we will solve this problem because we've always solved other problems before. But we forget that if we hadn't solved those previous issues, we wouldn't be here to…

The endless growth of runaway Capitalism with no plans to put a halt to is potentially our great filter. We'll need to send another Sagan vinyl up to warn about the dangers of Capitalism among societies. IPCC claims we need to expand beyond capitalism to solve this [1]. [1] https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/10/18/the-hope-at-the-heart-o...

China produces nearly twice the carbon dioxide emissions as the second largest carbon dioxide producer, USA. China is a communist state.

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/sc...

Re: Oceans 'soaking up more heat than estimated'

#32
post #16
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe that the climate impact of ethically raised meat tends to be a lot higher than that of mass-produced meat. The reason being that it simply takes more resources to ethically produce meat.

All meat is a incredibly wasteful way to grow food. Plus mass produced meat usually always is harmful to the animal's wellbeing and also due to the way they live in close cramped spaces, there is lot of antibiotic put into their feed to stop diseases. Being vegan is the best but sadly we love meat too much. I am myself no better

[deleted]

Re: Oceans 'soaking up more heat than estimated'

#33
post #17

1) Go watch the movie cowspiracy on netflix. Go vegan. 2) Get an energy audit and see if your home needs more insulation. If a solar panel installation will pay for itself in a reasonable time where you live (rebates - SRECs - etc) consider getting one. 3) If you live in a warmer climate with safe biking paths - get an electric bike to go to work. 4) The next car you get should be electric or plugin hybrid. Even if i…

If every single person on Earth did 1 - 4 it still wouldn't be enough. Change has to come from industrial polluters to have a real impact, and the only way to change industry is to stop driving growth through consumption. So... 5) Stop buying stuff .

I think if every single person on Earth went vegan it would have a significant impact. It would force the meat industry to change.

Re: Oceans 'soaking up more heat than estimated'

#34
post #11
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you don't want to go vegan, it's easy to eat less meat (and probably good for your health if you have a Western diet). My partner is vegetarian, I eat meat occasionally (and when I do I eat good meat, ethically and sustainably farmed). Reducing meat consumption is by far the easiest way to reduce your carbon footprint.

I believe that the climate impact of ethically raised meat tends to be a lot higher than that of mass-produced meat. The reason being that it simply takes more resources to ethically produce meat.

That's why it must be ethical and sustainable!

Re: Oceans 'soaking up more heat than estimated'

#35
post #5

1) Go watch the movie cowspiracy on netflix. Go vegan. 2) Get an energy audit and see if your home needs more insulation. If a solar panel installation will pay for itself in a reasonable time where you live (rebates - SRECs - etc) consider getting one. 3) If you live in a warmer climate with safe biking paths - get an electric bike to go to work. 4) The next car you get should be electric or plugin hybrid. Even if i…

We can do our part locally, but individuals have no control over industry. We need to force the hand of government to paint the big strokes that we can't. I feel like social change is going to be the slowest, a government may tend to lag but they can do the most in the quickest amount of time with industry regulation.

Exactly. We need a carbon tax, or a fee-and-dividend system. And we need it yesterday.

Doing the above can't hurt (and while you're at it you could forego long distance travel too).

But it will be much better/more-useful to be the annoying person who contacts your federal representatives every month and more importantly will not shut up about it to friends, family, and colleagues.

(I am sad to say that I have not been such a person myself, but I've resolved recently to be better about that. Let's hope I'm not too weak.)

Re: Oceans 'soaking up more heat than estimated'

#36
post #10

Nuclear war can reverse global warming [1]. Some argue that since nuclear weapons exist, they will likely be used sooner or later. 1. https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/02/110223-nucl...

I thought it was almost decided recently(definitely later than 2011) that actually, nuclear war wouldn't cause global cooldown, or if it did it would be extremely temporary, definitely not on the scale of decades or centuries. Another interesting fact is that we have detonated nearly 2500 nukes since we first made them, and it had observably zero impact on climate, despite each one releasing gigantic amounts of energ…

[deleted]

Re: Oceans 'soaking up more heat than estimated'

#37
post #24

1) Go watch the movie cowspiracy on netflix. Go vegan. 2) Get an energy audit and see if your home needs more insulation. If a solar panel installation will pay for itself in a reasonable time where you live (rebates - SRECs - etc) consider getting one. 3) If you live in a warmer climate with safe biking paths - get an electric bike to go to work. 4) The next car you get should be electric or plugin hybrid. Even if i…

I do that stuff but it's not going to save the world. To save the world we need: a substantial price on carbon, a faster path to developing advanced nuclear power (in addition to continuing renewables deployment), a major rollout of lab-grown meat as soon as it's affordable with decent quality, negative emissions methods both technological (direct air capture) and biological (kelp, reforesting), and maybe some kind o…

> In short we need a global WWII-level effort.

I agree.

"It’s been a couple of weeks now since the IPCC report came out. You know what it says. If the whole damn species pulls together in a concerted effort “without historical precedent”— if we start right now, and never let up on the throttle— we just might be able to swing the needle back from Catastrophe to mere Disaster. If we cut carbon emissions by half over the next decade, eliminate them entirely by 2050; if the species cuts its meat and dairy consumption by 90%; if we invent new unicorn technologies for sucking carbon back out of the atmosphere (or scale up extant prototype tech by a factor of two million in two years) — if we commit to these and other equally Herculean tasks, then we might just barely be able to keep global temperature from rising more than 1.5°C.[1] We’ll only lose 70-90% of the word’s remaining coral reefs (which are already down by about 50%, let’s not forget). Only 350 million more urban dwellers will be exposed to severe drought and “deadly heat” events. Only 130-140 million will be inundated. Global fire frequency will only increase by 38%. Fish stocks in low latitudes will be irreparably hammered, but it might be possible to save the higher-latitude populations. We’ll only lose a third of the permafrost. You get the idea.

We have twelve years to show results.

If we don’t pull all these things off— if, for example, we only succeed in meeting the flaccid 2°C aspirations of the Paris Accords— then we lose all the coral. We lose the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and the Greenland Ice Shelf (not that it isn’t already circling the bowl, of course). Twice as many people suffer “aggravated water scarcity” than at 1.5°C; 170% more of the population deals with fluvial flooding. The increase in global wildfire frequency passes 60% and keeps going. Marine fisheries crash pole to pole. The number of species that loses at least half their traditional habitat is 2-3 times higher than would have been the case at 1.5°C. It goes on." [1]

(Edit) Yet in my experience nobody is talking about this. A few weeks ago the IPCC told us we have a gun to our head and a decade to solve the problem. A few days ago we learned that "population sizes of wildlife decreased by 60% globally between 1970 and 2014" [2]. And now we're on to the next thing and everyone is walking around like things are normal. People should be focussed on this and nothing else, but they're not.

And also: how exactly do I explain to my children that the world they're growing-up in is in a dire state and soon may not even be able to support anything like a normal life for them? Ideas anyone?

[1] The Adorable Optimism of the IPCC, by Peter Watts https://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=8433

[2] https://www.wwf.org.uk/updates/living-planet-report-2018

Re: Oceans 'soaking up more heat than estimated'

#38
post #21
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you don't want to go vegan, it's easy to eat less meat (and probably good for your health if you have a Western diet). My partner is vegetarian, I eat meat occasionally (and when I do I eat good meat, ethically and sustainably farmed). Reducing meat consumption is by far the easiest way to reduce your carbon footprint.

Hate to break it to you, but there is no such thing as ethically farmed meat. If it’s killed for your plate, it’s still bad karma.

I hate to break it to you, but everything that you eat is killed for your plate.

Re: Oceans 'soaking up more heat than estimated'

#39
post #24

1) Go watch the movie cowspiracy on netflix. Go vegan. 2) Get an energy audit and see if your home needs more insulation. If a solar panel installation will pay for itself in a reasonable time where you live (rebates - SRECs - etc) consider getting one. 3) If you live in a warmer climate with safe biking paths - get an electric bike to go to work. 4) The next car you get should be electric or plugin hybrid. Even if i…

I do that stuff but it's not going to save the world. To save the world we need: a substantial price on carbon, a faster path to developing advanced nuclear power (in addition to continuing renewables deployment), a major rollout of lab-grown meat as soon as it's affordable with decent quality, negative emissions methods both technological (direct air capture) and biological (kelp, reforesting), and maybe some kind o…

This is the most accurate comment so far.

Also note that we need all of the above in place within the next 10-15 years.

Re: Oceans 'soaking up more heat than estimated'

#40
post #10

Nuclear war can reverse global warming [1]. Some argue that since nuclear weapons exist, they will likely be used sooner or later. 1. https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/02/110223-nucl...

I thought it was almost decided recently(definitely later than 2011) that actually, nuclear war wouldn't cause global cooldown, or if it did it would be extremely temporary, definitely not on the scale of decades or centuries. Another interesting fact is that we have detonated nearly 2500 nukes since we first made them, and it had observably zero impact on climate, despite each one releasing gigantic amounts of energ…

A global nuclear war will certainly reduce the subsequent CO2 emissions, even if nuclear winter model is incorrect
Post reply on HN