2015 Set a Frenzy of Climate Records • Hacker News Board

Re: 2015 Set a Frenzy of Climate Records

#41

Post by danieltillett » Thu, Aug 04, 2016, 12:49 AM UTC

ori_b wrote: post #40

danieltillett wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Data that comes out of a political process where people can claim that they are reducing CO2 emission is a lot more suspect than data that comes from actually measuring the CO2 level in the air. This is how we can end up with such contradictory data - on one side there is a vested interest that says emissions are going down, while the measurement of the actual CO2 emission rate is going up.

The reason that the data is 'contradictory' is that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is the integral of the emissions over time (minus the amount that gets sequestered by greenery and the like). Even if the emissions level off fully, the expected amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will grow linearly. Emissions need to decrease to less than the rate of sequestration for the total CO2 in the atmosphere to shrink. There'…

Yes the level is an integral, but the growth rate is a derivative. The growth rate measured in the atmosphere does not match the negative growth rate the political process is claiming.

Ultimately what matters is the absolute level of GHG and there is no sign this is going down anytime in the foreseeable future unless we make some major and very drastic changes.

Re: 2015 Set a Frenzy of Climate Records

#42

Post by ori_b » Thu, Aug 04, 2016, 1:03 AM UTC

danieltillett wrote: post #41

ori_b wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason that the data is 'contradictory' is that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is the integral of the emissions over time (minus the amount that gets sequestered by greenery and the like). Even if the emissions level off fully, the expected amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will grow linearly. Emissions need to decrease to less than the rate of sequestration for the total CO2 in the atmosphere to shrink. There'…

Yes the level is an integral, but the growth rate is a derivative. The growth rate measured in the atmosphere does not match the negative growth rate the political process is claiming. Ultimately what matters is the absolute level of GHG and there is no sign this is going down anytime in the foreseeable future unless we make some major and very drastic changes.

> The growth rate measured in the atmosphere does not match the negative growth rate the political process is claiming.

The political process is claiming a negative growth rate in emissions (ie, the second derivative of the atmospheric levels, or the first derivative of the change in the atmospheric levels).

In other words, the growth of the growth in atmospheric CO2 levels is decreasing.

Re: 2015 Set a Frenzy of Climate Records

#43

Post by danieltillett » Thu, Aug 04, 2016, 1:16 AM UTC

ori_b wrote: post #42

danieltillett wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes the level is an integral, but the growth rate is a derivative. The growth rate measured in the atmosphere does not match the negative growth rate the political process is claiming. Ultimately what matters is the absolute level of GHG and there is no sign this is going down anytime in the foreseeable future unless we make some major and very drastic changes.

> The growth rate measured in the atmosphere does not match the negative growth rate the political process is claiming. The political process is claiming a negative growth rate in emissions (ie, the second derivative of the atmospheric levels, or the first derivative of the change in the atmospheric levels). In other words, the growth of the growth in atmospheric CO2 levels is decreasing.

Yes, but the second derivative of the atmospheric levels is not negative :(

Re: 2015 Set a Frenzy of Climate Records

#44

Post by SwellJoe » Thu, Aug 04, 2016, 3:36 AM UTC

tonmoy wrote: post #30

SwellJoe wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

I'm not sure what to make of that question. I think part of what makes civilization "civil" is that we don't accept huge swaths of the human population dying horrible deaths so that a lucky and rich portion of the human population can survive.